Oral
Answers to
Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Severn Growth Summit

Michelle Donelan: What steps he is taking to expand the economic links between south Wales and the south-west of England as a result of the Severn Growth Summit.

Stuart Andrew: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. Growth corridors are an important element of the industrial strategy for Wales. We are responding to local demand, building on the work undertaken by the great western cities and creating a great western powerhouse. We want to see the skills and expertise of this important region recognised across the UK and internationally.

Michelle Donelan: Does the Minister agree that scrapping the tolls on the Severn crossing—a commitment made by this Conservative Government—will prove an economic catalyst for further investment and significantly expand the links between south Wales and the south-west?

Stuart Andrew: I certainly welcome the abolition of the Severn tolls. It sends a powerful message that we are keen on this economic corridor. It will, I hope, bring about investment for the rest of south Wales, and it will save the average motorist around £1,400 per year.

Jessica Morden: My constituents want to be able to access work in the south-west, but despite it being plain that demand for rail services is going to grow and grow locally, there are still too few carriages, overcrowding and unreliable rail services. Will the Minister personally talk to Great Western about that?

Stuart Andrew: We are going through a consultation at the moment, and I hope the hon. Lady’s constituents will take part in that. We recognise that investment in rail is important. That is why this Government are investing more than we have done as a country since the Victorian era. The new Intercity Express Programme trains are an investment of more than £5.7 billion, and I hope she will welcome that positive news.

Kevin Foster: South Wales is one of the key markets for Torbay’s holiday companies and industry. Will the Minister look at improving the direct rail link between Cardiff and Paignton? In particular, will he raise issues with Great Western about the provision of refreshments on that service? At the moment, there are none throughout the whole journey.

Stuart Andrew: I would say that Wales is a good place for my hon. Friend’s constituents to come and visit as a tourist destination too. Of course we want to make sure that transport is as effective as possible, and we are in constant discussions about improving services. I will make sure we make that point about the food.

Chris Elmore: One way that we could have real economic growth and jobs prospects for the whole region would be to deliver the tidal lagoon project. It has been more than 18 months since the Hendry review. Can I ask the Minister to get on with it and encourage the Secretary of State to start defending and standing up for Wales in the Cabinet?

Stuart Andrew: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always stands up for Wales in Cabinet and does so very effectively. We are looking at the tidal lagoon carefully to ensure that it is value for money for the taxpayer too.

Welsh EU Continuity Bill

Alan Brown: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

Tommy Sheppard: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

David Linden: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

Alun Cairns: As I have said previously, I do not think that the Welsh Government’s continuity Bill is necessary. The UK Government want to reach agreement with the Welsh Government on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, with a view to securing the National Assembly’s support for the legislation.

Alan Brown: Despite that answer, the reality is that on Friday, the Cabinet Office printed a list of 24 devolved competencies that the UK Government are going to snatch back from Wales and Scotland. That proves the need for a continuity Bill. Why is the Secretary of State not defending his devolved Parliament and standing up for it, instead of allowing this power grab?

Alun Cairns: My relationship with the First Minister and the Welsh Government is a positive one. We do not agree on everything, but we agree on the objective, which is to improve the outcomes for businesses and communities in Wales. There are 64 areas of the devolution settlement with Wales. There are 24 areas that we want to discuss further with the Welsh Government, to come to an agreement on how best to ensure that common rules apply across the UK, so that Welsh businesses are protected and can market their products across the rest of the UK.

Tommy Sheppard: Earlier this week, the long-awaited Government amendments to clause 11 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill were published. Despite assurances  and promises, they were published without the consent, support or agreement of the devolved Administrations. Is it still the Government’s policy to obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations? If further agreement is reached, will the Secretary of State bring forward further amendments?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments tabled to clause 11 in the other place. Commitments were made that amendments would be tabled, and that is exactly what we have done. If we had not tabled those amendments, we would have been criticised. As I have said in this Chamber and elsewhere, we are determined to work with the devolved Administrations to come to an agreement, but it is the UK Government that have the interest of looking after the whole of the UK. It is the UK Government that want to act in the interests of businesses and communities to ensure that a Scottish business can sell or buy products in Wales under the same regulations, where a common UK market matters.

David Linden: One of the reasons why continuity Bills have been brought forward is that there is no agreement in the Joint Ministerial Committee on this blatant Westminster power grab, but that has not stopped the UK Government pressing ahead anyway. Does the Secretary of State agree that no deal can be agreed on new powers unless there is agreement at the JMC?

Alun Cairns: I am hoping the agreement of the devolved Administrations will come as soon as possible. I am not going to tie it down to any one particular Joint Ministerial Committee meeting, but the one last week was another positive engagement between Administrations. I have been in this position before, when it was predicted that I would not get a legislative consent motion for the Wales Bill as it was progressing through Parliament. This can be done only by constant hard work and engagement, as well as optimism on both sides—acting in the interests of businesses and communities, not in the interests of politicians.

Stephen Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only is there not a power grab, but there will be a significant increase in powers to the devolved Administrations as Britain leaves the European Union?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no intention of any power grab. Of the 64 areas that relate to Wales, we have already said that 30 will pass to the devolved Administration without the need for any further agreement, or at the very most only an informal agreement between the UK Government and them, but there are 24 areas in which it is in the interests of businesses in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in England, to have common practices so that we can protect the UK market; 80% of Welsh output is sold to the rest of the UK.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Secretary of State recall that Wales as a principality and the United Kingdom as a nation voted to leave the European Union, and that rather than talking about EU continuity, we should therefore be focusing on how to strike the  best deal for Britain on leaving the EU, particularly in order to be ready and prepared on day one at the Dover frontline?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that Wales voted to leave the European Union, and we have an obligation to act on that instruction from the referendum. This is also an opportunity to highlight that 80% of output from Wales goes to the rest of the UK, and Scotland sells four times more to the rest of the UK than it sells to the rest of the European Union. On that basis, protecting the UK market must be a priority, and acting in the interests of businesses and communities is our priority.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the advantages to Wales of having a common market across the whole of the United Kingdom?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Much focus is understandably and rightly placed on selling and trading with the European Union, but the most important market to Wales is the UK market—with eight out of 10 lorries of output from Wales and complex supply chains—and this is only right. Only two weeks ago, we recognised that the investment of Toyota in Derbyshire will have major positive impacts on the Toyota plant making engines on Deeside.

Christina Rees: I am disappointed that the much-promised UK Government amendment to the power grab in clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, tabled by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government in the House of Lords on Monday, states that UK Ministers will merely consult Welsh Government Ministers, not seek their consent. In so doing, his Government have changed the fundamental principle of the devolution settlement against the settled will of the people of Wales.

Alun Cairns: I do not recognise the statements made by the hon. Lady. The amendment tabled in the other place is a significant one. It recognises that powers automatically fall to the devolved Administrations, but also introduces the prospect of bringing them in centrally to protect the UK common market, which is in the interests of Welsh business. I have had the privilege of sitting in front of a number of expert panels of industry representatives, and we are acting in the way they are calling for, rather than in the way that some politicians who are more interested in the powers are calling for.

Christina Rees: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but the UK Government have said that the amendment merely creates a temporary place for the  24 powers to be kept—in a freezer—until new arrangements are discussed. If this is a temporary measure, why permanently alter the Government of Wales Act 2006?

Alun Cairns: Protecting the UK market is absolutely a priority for us. The hon. Lady will have food producers in her constituency who want to sell their products in England according to common practices on food labelling. That is an example of the area of policy on which we are seeking to get agreement. We will continue to work hard with the devolved Administrations to get agreement,  but only the UK Government can act in the interests of the whole of the UK, not some politicians in other areas who are seeking to represent a regional dimension only.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Last week the Secretary of State published a list explicitly outlining which powers Westminster intends either to hoard or to dole out, as it sees fit. This week he published a set of amendments to clause 11 of the withdrawal Bill, without gaining the agreement of either of the devolved nations. Will he explain how that is anything other than a power grab?

Alun Cairns: In the first instance, that list is still subject to discussion, as clearly stated in the headings under the three various sections. I am also pleased to say that the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales recognised that we wanted to publish that list and supported our publication of it, while not necessarily recognising the three elements of it. That demonstrates the positive way in which we seek to work with the devolved Administrations to get agreement. It is only the UK Government who can act in the interests of the whole of the UK.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Today the Welsh EU continuity Bill will be subject to the first stage of the expedited legislative timetable. If it passes, debates over the power grab will be forced out of this Chamber and into the courts. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he intends to fight us in the courts?

Alun Cairns: As I said in my initial answer, I do not think that the continuity Bill is necessary. The Welsh Government have also said that they would prefer not to pursue it. I genuinely believe that there is enough good will between all Administrations to come to an agreement. After all, if we focus on the needs of businesses and communities, we will achieve a positive outcome. It is when politicians focus on the powers rather than on outcomes that things go wrong.

Rail Electrification: Swansea

Darren Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect on the Welsh economy of the decision not to electrify the mainline to Swansea.

Emma Hardy: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the effect on the Welsh economy of the decision not to electrify the mainline to Swansea.

Stuart Andrew: The UK Government’s record investment in Wales’s rail infrastructure is focused on maximising the benefits to passengers while delivering the best value for taxpayers. The £5.7 billion fleet of modern, intercity express programme trains running on the great western main line to Swansea brings significant time savings to and from London and tangible benefits to passengers in terms of speed, comfort and reliability, without the need for a costly, disruptive programme of electrification.

Darren Jones: The failure to fully electrify the line to Swansea means that more people will use their cars. Following the removal of the tolls on the Severn bridge, the Department for Transport said in response to my written parliamentary question:
“No further modelling was undertaken”
on the increase in cars. Has the Minister’s Department assessed the potential further gridlock in north Bristol?

Stuart Andrew: I simply do not accept that not electrifying the line to Swansea will not bring benefits—it will. The train journey times to London from those areas will be reduced by 15 minutes. We have to recognise that the costs have gone up significantly. The benefit-to-cost ratio was extremely low and even the Public Accounts Committee recommended looking at the issue again.

Emma Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government’s broken promises on rail electrification, both in Wales and the wider UK, including Hull, and their unwillingness to provide funding for rail enhancements will damage connectivity and therefore hinder our opportunities for economic growth and development?

Stuart Andrew: I find it very hard to accept a Labour Member talking about rail investment when that party electrified probably only 10 miles of line in 13 years. We are bringing record investment all over the country, particularly in Wales, and we are proud of our achievements.

David Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware of press reports suggesting that the Welsh Labour Government are now cancelling electrification projects in the valleys? Does he agree that if they were serious about improving transport links, they would get on with building the M4 relief road?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is this Government who have being bringing in the investment in our rail infrastructure, and the M4 corridor really does need solving. Many people and businesses across south Wales have been calling for that for a very long time and, frankly, it is time that the Welsh Government got on with it.

Iain Stewart: May I urge my hon. Friend to look at the evidence received by the Select Committee on Transport? We heard that the new bi-mode class 800 trains will run to the same timetable, whether they operate on diesel power or on electric, so there will be no loss of service by not having the lines electrified.

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is a great expert in transport matters and he is absolutely right that having those lines above the train will not improve performance. What passengers want is to be able to get to their destination reliably, and that is what we are going to bring back.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch. As we heard from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Labour Government yesterday cancelled the electrification of the line to Ebbw Vale using exactly the same arguments as the Secretary of State for cancelling the electrification of  the main line to Swansea—I do not know whether they swapped press releases or not. Is it not the case that when it comes to the Welsh railways, the Welsh people have been let down by the Governments at both ends of the M4?

Stuart Andrew: I would not accept that. The fact is that we are investing in the railway. Let us not forget that some of the investment in England will benefit passengers in north Wales. For example, the Halton curve helps passengers from north Wales to get to Liverpool and the north-west of England.

Steel Industry

Tom Pursglove: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the future role of the Welsh steel industry in the UK steel supply chain.

Alun Cairns: We are working with the sector, the unions and devolved Administrations to support the UK steel industry to develop a long-term viable solution. We are deeply disappointed by the US announcement and are taking all possible action to support the industry.

Tom Pursglove: The steelworks in Corby is part of a comprehensive steel supply chain that involves sites in Wales. Further to the conversations the Secretary of State has been having in Wales, what discussions is he having with UK Government Ministers about how we can best support the UK steel industry as a whole?

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to support the steel industry. He was at the forefront of the debate two years ago when the steel industry was facing a particular crisis, and it is through his influence, with others, that we have introduced an energy compensation scheme, flexibility over EU emissions targets and 45 trade defence measures to prevent illegal steel dumping in Europe. His influence is pretty strong in this debate.

Stephen Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State aware that when President Bush introduced steel tariffs in 2002 it led to 200,000 job losses in the US? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that American politicians, employers and trade unions are pressing President Trump to drop these utterly self-defeating tariffs?

Alun Cairns: We have said that we disagree with the statements the President has made. I was in the US just two weeks ago, and I spoke to our ambassador and the UK’s trade commissioner about this issue. I subsequently met the US ambassador here in the UK and I spoke again, just last Friday, to the UK trade commissioner in the US. This is a cross-Government effort. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is travelling to the US as we speak to pursue and raise these issues. There has been a whole cross-Government approach to this issue and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised it directly with the President.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Henry Bellingham: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK leaving the EU and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Alun Cairns: I have regular and constructive discussions with the Welsh Government on EU exit and the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I look forward to continuing those discussions this afternoon at the meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee in plenary, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that agriculture, and hill farming in particular, is vital to the Welsh economy? What is he doing to ensure that the EU money currently going into the rural economy continues to do so after Brexit? What discussions has he had on that with his colleague from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is a great supporter of agriculture across the whole of the UK and he is right to highlight the importance of the agricultural sector to the Welsh economy. He will also be familiar with our manifesto commitment, as well as statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to fund agriculture on a similar scale up to 2022.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The US-UK trade and investment working group was set up in July last year. What representations has the Secretary of State made to that group about the impact President Trump’s tariffs would have on the Welsh steel industry?

Alun Cairns: I mentioned to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) the direct actions I have taken and the whole host of actions being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. This is such a priority for this Government that there is cross-Government action to support the steel industry. As someone whose father was a welder in the steelworks in Port Talbot, I recognise the importance of this industry to Wales.

Stephen Crabb: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff love nothing more than a long and fuzzy row with Westminster over powers. Does he agree that they would do much better to work constructively and pragmatically with Ministers here to make a success of Brexit, which is, after all, what the people of Wales voted for?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As my predecessor, he took positive steps to get to a positive relationship with the Welsh Government and laid the foundations of the Wales Bill, which is now the Wales Act 2017. That has clarified the devolution settlement and enabled constructive debate to take place. I am optimistic that on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill we can win if we both focus on the outcomes we need to focus on: the interests of our businesses and communities.

Stephen Doughty: I met representatives of Celsa Steel from my constituency yesterday, who made very clear to me the importance of pan-European safeguards to prevent diversionary dumping as a result of the Trump tariffs. Does the Secretary of State not think it ironic that, at a time when we need to be co-operating more than ever across Europe, we are planning to leave the European Union?

Alun Cairns: I also want to support Celsa Steel, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that Wales voted to leave the European Union, and we have an obligation to act on that instruction. However, he is right about the diversion and the distortion to the market from the risks of the action that is taking place. We are working closely with the European Union to protect the interests of Welsh steelworkers.

Industrial Strategy: Cross-Border Working

Ranil Jayawardena: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the growth corridors set out in the industrial strategy facilitate cross-border working.

Stuart Andrew: Members across this House recognise that economic activity is not constrained by administrative borders. A perfect demonstration of that is the closeness of the economies of north-east Wales and the north-west of England, supported by the northern powerhouse and the Mersey Dee Alliance. I was delighted to see that growth corridors were formally recognised in the industrial strategy and we will continue to develop these for the benefit of the 50% of the Welsh people who live within 25 miles of the border.

Ranil Jayawardena: Wales has great access to my constituency thanks to the M4, but has my hon. Friend considered improving connectivity to the south of England by building the M31, for example, which would link the M3 to the M4, and possibly beyond, with the economic benefits that that would bring for everyone?

Stuart Andrew: I completely agree: we recognise that connectivity—particularly cross-border connectivity—is incredibly important. The Department for Transport is gathering evidence at the moment to inform the second road investment strategy, and I hope that my hon. Friend will put a bid forward.

Chris Evans: Bristol has been very successful in attracting financial services to its economy. Now that the tolls on the M4 toll bridge are coming down, what opportunity does Wales have to create a financial services powerhouse from Cardiff and Swansea?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Cardiff already enjoys a centre of excellence in finance. The fact that the tolls are going on the bridge will make that opportunity even more available, and we will do everything we can to make sure that it benefits in every way it can.

Michael Fabricant: May I tell my hon. Friend that I had a meeting with commercial property people on Monday? They were telling me that the electrification of the rail line to Swansea is having no effect whatever on investment. What is having an effect is the lowering of tolls on the Severn crossing.

Stuart Andrew: Exactly. We should be talking up the benefits of the investment that is happening in our rail infrastructure to bring about growth for cities such as Swansea. It is disappointing to hear negative comments when we really should be pushing the opportunities that exist for the city.

Chris Ruane: There are 7 million residents in north-west England and nearly 700,000 in north Wales. Priming and connecting the two economies makes absolute sense. The issue is funding—money. Welsh Governments have already committed hundreds of millions of pounds to these improvements. What new additional funding have this Government committed to date?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given more moneys to the Welsh Assembly under the new settlement, but I completely recognise that the cross-border activity in north Wales and the north-west of England is incredibly important. That is why I was pleased to meet representatives from the all-party group the other day. We are looking at some of the rail investment that is needed, particularly the Halton curve and the Wrexham-Bidston line.

Investment in the Railway Network

Geraint Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on future investment in the railway network in Wales.

Alun Cairns: I hold regular meetings and discussions with the Transport Secretary and his ministerial team to make the case for investment in Wales’ railway infrastructure. I am determined to drive forward improvements to Wales’ rail connectivity for the benefit of our passengers, commuters and businesses.

Geraint Davies: I am losing my voice, Mr Speaker. HS2 will cost £56 billion and 20,000 Welsh jobs. For £1 billion, we could build two and a half miles of HS2 or halve the time between Cardiff and Swansea and have an electrified Swansea metro. Why is the Welsh Secretary not objecting to the £1 billion cut from Network Rail to our rail infrastructure and investing in Wales instead?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has done very well, considering he has lost his voice.

Alun Cairns: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that HS2 is a UK scheme and provides an opportunity for significant connectivity benefits with north Wales. He refers to the Swansea metro project, which offers interesting opportunities, and I am happy to say that I am meeting Mark Barry, the project’s architect, in the coming weeks.

David Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recently launched West and Wales strategic rail prospectus contains sensible proposals that would, if adopted, significantly improve rail connectivity in north Wales and that they should receive favourable consideration by the Government?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his hard work in this area, because cross-border connectivity is extremely important. It demonstrates how integrated the network is. There are significant investments already taking place across the north Wales network, including improvements to signalling, as well as the Halton curve, which has already been referred to. Any additions to the debate, however, are interesting, and we will look at them in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Vicky Foxcroft: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 14 March.

Theresa May: I am sure that Members across the House will wish to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Professor Stephen Hawking, who died earlier today. Professor Hawking’s exceptional contributions to science and our knowledge of the universe speak for themselves. As his children have said:
“His courage and persistence with his brilliance and humour inspired people across the world.”
Members will also have seen reports of a number of suspicious packages targeted at Muslim Members. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning this unacceptable and abhorrent behaviour, which has no place in our society. An investigation is under way and steps are being taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.
I will be making a statement following Prime Minister’s questions updating the House on the Salisbury incident. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Vicky Foxcroft: I thank the Prime Minister for agreeing to meet me to discuss the work of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission. Youth violence is complex and needs long-term solutions, but some things can be done right now, such as legislating to ensure that all knives and sharp instruments in shops are locked away or stored behind counters to ensure that no one can steal and use them. Will she do this?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. As she says, this is a complex problem, and we need to ensure we have long-term solutions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing a new serious violence strategy, which will put an emphasis on early intervention with young people. It is important that we have tough legislation on knives,  but we also need to work in partnership with retailers. We have recently consulted on new measures, including restrictions on knives sold online, and in March 2016, when I was Home Secretary, we reached a voluntary agreement with major retailers about how knives should be displayed and the training given to sales staff to support action to tackle knife crime. She is right, however, to raise this as an area of concern.

Alex Burghart: On the subject of Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister stand by the commitments made in the joint report of December, and will she confirm that we will accept nothing that will undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we stand by all the commitments we made in December. We have been clear that our preferred option is to deliver on them through our new partnership with the EU, with specific solutions to address the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland if needed. The work we are undertaking with the Commission will include that on the final so-called backstop, which will form part of the withdrawal agreement. That cannot be the text that the Commission has proposed, which, as I have said, is unacceptable, but we stand ready to work with the Commission and the Irish Government to ensure that all the commitments on Northern Ireland made in the joint report are included in the withdrawal agreement.

Jeremy Corbyn: I, along with the Prime Minister, absolutely condemn the vile messages and threatening packages sent to Muslim Members of the House, and also the rise in Islamophobia and the abusive messages being sent to Muslim families all over this country. It has to be utterly condemned by all of us, just as we would condemn anybody who attempted to divide our country by racism or extremism of any form. We have to stand united with any community that is under threat at any time.
I am sure the whole House will join me in supporting what the Prime Minister just said about Stephen Hawking, one of the most acclaimed scientists of his generation, who helped us to understand about the world and the universe. He was concerned about peace and the survival of the world, but he was also a passionate campaigner for the national health service. He said:
“I have received excellent medical attention in Britain… I believe in universal health care. And I am not afraid to say so.”
If we believe in universal healthcare, how can it be possible for someone to live and work in this country and pay their taxes, and then be denied access to the NHS for lifesaving cancer treatment? Can the Prime Minister explain?

Theresa May: Let me first join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that there is absolutely no place in our society for hate crime or racism, whatever form it takes. We should stand united against such behaviour and such activities.
I am pleased that we have a good record on cancer provision. More people are surviving cancer in this country than ever before as a result of changes that have been made and developments in the national health  service. Of course we continue to work to ensure that the treatments that we make available are the best that we can provide. I am not aware of the particular case that the right hon. Gentleman has raised with me, but we want to ensure that all who are entitled to treatment through the national health service are able to receive it. There are, of course, questions about particular drugs that are made available to individuals for treatment, which we continue to look at.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will indeed be writing to the Prime Minister about the case about which I am concerned. It relates to a man who has lived in this country for 44 years, has worked and paid his taxes—obviously, he is an older gentleman—and is now being denied cancer treatment. I suspect he is not alone in that, and I urge the Prime Minister to discuss the matter with the Home Office and others.
This week I received a letter from Hilary, a British pensioner—it is relevant to the point that the Prime Minister just made—who wrote:
“I am now having to pay for my thyroid medication because the CCG needs to save money. I have worked all my life, paid national insurance and… this is not fair”.
Last March, the Health Secretary said that
“it is absolutely essential that we…get back to the 95% target”
for accident and emergency waiting times, and that that should happen in
“the course of the next calendar year”.
Well, the calendar year is now up. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is no longer possible?

Theresa May: I look forward to receiving the details of the individual case from the right hon. Gentleman, but let me take this opportunity to remind him that I think he raised a case about Georgina with me last October and has not written to me about that. [Interruption.] As I have said, I look forward to receiving the details of the case that he has just raised.
What we have done in relation to cancer treatment is ensure that more diagnostic tests are taking place. More people with suspected cancer are being seen by specialists, and more people are starting treatment for cancer. That is why I say that we have seen an improvement in the cancer treatment that is available to people in this country.
I am pleased to say that we have more doctors working in accident and emergency departments. We have put more money in—the Chancellor announced this last year—both to deal with winter pressures and to ensure that those working in accident and emergency departments are able to provide the treatment that is right for the patient before them. Some people do not need to be admitted to hospital; they need to see a GP. We are working with the NHS to ensure that the treatment that patients receive is the treatment that is right for them.

Jeremy Corbyn: My understanding is that Georgina’s case was resolved before the Prime Minister was required to do anything about it—following my raising it here. [Interruption.] If nothing else, Mr Speaker, that proves the power of Parliament.
Key A&E waiting targets have not been met since 2015, and NHS managers are saying that they will not be met until 2019. February was the worst ever month for A&E performance. NHS Providers director Saffron Cordery said:
“This is the first time we have had to accept that the NHS will not meet its key constitutional standards... If we want to provide quality of care, we need the right long term financial settlement.”
The NHS is clearly in crisis, so why was there not a penny extra for it in the yesterday’s statement by the Chancellor?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we did not wait until yesterday’s spring statement to announce more money for the NHS; we announced it in the Budget last autumn. As a result of that, the NHS is getting £2.5 billion more in the forthcoming financial year 2018-19 and more to fund the nurses’ pay settlement, when that is resolved.

Jeremy Corbyn: Under Labour, the 18-week target for non-urgent operations was in place. That target has been abandoned by the Prime Minister. When will it be reinstated?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman talks about things that were being delivered under Labour, but perhaps he might look at what Labour is doing in Wales on the delivery of the NHS. The latest annual data on 12-hour waits in A&E show that 3.4% of patients waited more than 12 hours in Wales compared with 1.3% in England. If he wants to talk about meeting targets, he should talk to the Labour Government in Wales.

Jeremy Corbyn: NHS England has abandoned its A&E targets until April 2019, so it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister to be scaremongering about Wales while she is abandoning targets in England—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There are lots of questions to get through, and they must be heard.

Jeremy Corbyn: A recent National Audit Office report states that NHS funding will fall by 0.3% in 2019. People’s lives are at stake. Is the Prime Minister really saying that the A&E doctors are wrong, that the NHS managers are wrong and that the royal colleges and the health unions are wrong, and that it is actually only she who knows best about the NHS?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman talks about scaremongering in Wales, but I was pointing out the facts about what is happening in the NHS in Wales. That is why we often see people in Wales trying to get treatment in England rather than in Wales. We are putting more money into the national health service, but in order to do that, we need to ensure that we have a strong economy to provide the money for the NHS. What do we know about Labour’s policies? They would cause a run on the pound, crash our economy and bankrupt Britain, so there would be less money for the NHS.

Jeremy Corbyn: When people are dying because of overcrowding and long waits in our hospitals, the Prime Minister should get a grip on it and ensure that the NHS now has the money that it needs to deal with patient demand. In a recent interview, the Health Secretary said of NHS staff that
“when they signed up to go into medicine, they knew there would be pressurised moments”.
What they also expected was a recognition of that, with an annual pay rise without cuts in their paid leave, and proper funding for the national health service. When there are 100,000 unfilled posts, there are clearly not enough staff around them to share the burden. We started with Professor Stephen Hawking. Just a few months ago, he said:
“There is overwhelming evidence that NHS funding and the number of doctors and nurses are inadequate, and it is getting worse”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Hawking?

Theresa May: Once again, I am very happy to point out some facts to the right hon. Gentleman. We have 14,900 more doctors working in the national health service. We have almost 13,900 more nurses working on our wards. Why did we put an emphasis on nurses working on our wards? It was because of what we saw under the Labour Government in Mid Staffordshire. What we need to do to ensure that we can provide the funding for the NHS—we are providing record levels of funding for the NHS—is to take a balanced approach to our economy. That is an approach that deals with our debts, keeps taxes low on working families and puts more money into our public services, such as hospitals and schools. Labour’s approach would increase the debt, and that would mean less money for our schools and hospitals and higher taxes for ordinary working people, because what we know about the Labour party is that it is always ordinary people who pay the price of Labour.

Richard Graham: Last week’s launch of a consultation on all aspects of domestic violence will be widely welcomed in Gloucester and across the country. Will the Prime Minister, who has done so much on such issues, confirm today that the Government intend to increase spending, bed provision and, where necessary, the number of women’s refuges, so that those who have survived get the help and safe haven that they deserve?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. It is one that I have obviously given considerable attention to, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to follow that work. We are entirely committed to developing a sustainable funding model for refuges, and I can guarantee that funding for refuges will continue at the same level as today, because I know how critical the support is to vulnerable people at a time of crisis. We will ring-fence the funding for short-term supported housing overall, including for refuges, for the long term indefinitely. That means that no refuge should worry about closing or have any doubts about our commitment to ensuring that we provide a sustainable funding model for them.

Ian Blackford: I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour party about hate crime and Islamophobia, and my thoughts are with the family and friends of Dr Stephen Hawking.
For months, the devolved Administrations have been waiting for the UK Government to table amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On Monday, the long-awaited amendments were published  but without the agreement of the devolved Governments. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the amendments have been forced on the devolved Administrations?

Theresa May: In one sentence the right hon. Gentleman says that he is waiting for the amendment—the reason why we took time is that we were talking with the Scottish and Welsh Governments—and then when we do publish it he complains that we have published it. He really needs to get his story straight.

Ian Blackford: I encourage the Prime Minister to listen to the question, because it was about agreement. I am afraid that that answer simply was not good enough.
The Prime Minister famously claimed that the UK was made up of “equal partners”. What an irony that is given that she is overseeing the demolition of the devolution settlement. In 1997, the Tories were happy to oppose the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and the clothes have not changed. In 2018, they are happy to systematically destroy the settlement that the Parliament thrives on. I call upon the Prime Minister once again, “Stop this attack on devolution and redouble your efforts in working with the devolved Administrations to find agreement.”

Theresa May: This Government have actually given more powers to the Scottish Government and will be giving more powers to the Scottish Government. Significant extra powers will be devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments as a result of the decisions that we are taking around Brexit. We have given more powers, including the tax-raising powers, but it is just a pity that the Scottish Nationalists have chosen to use those powers to increase taxes on people earning £26,000 or more.

Jeremy Quin: Last week, Horsham held an apprenticeship fair, building on  the success that has seen a 70% reduction in youth unemployment since 2010. Nationally, we see increasing exports, increasing productivity and increasing real wages. Will my right hon. Friend again remind the House that it is that sustained economic performance that underpins our investment in our valued public services?

Theresa May: I commend Horsham for holding an apprenticeship fair; it is important that we give young people the opportunity of an apprenticeship. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we can fund public services only if we have strength in our economy providing the income for us to do so. In the past few weeks, we have seen that manufacturing output has grown for nine consecutive months for the first time since records began in 1968. We have seen the best two quarters of productivity growth since the financial crisis and the lowest year to-date net borrowing since 2008, and employment is near a record high. The Conservatives are delivering a strong economy, new jobs, healthier finances and an economy that really is fit for the future.

Jack Dromey: Last week, GKN workers came to Parliament—typically 25 and 30 years’ service, their mums and dads before them working for a British engineering icon that is 259 years old. Sat opposite were the three fabulously  wealthy owners of Melrose, determined to stage a hostile takeover of the company, break it up and sell  it off.
I ask the Prime Minister this. She told Parliament that she would act in the national interest; the next 10 days will decide the future. Will she use the powers that she has to intervene and block this hostile takeover in the British national interest?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Business Secretary has been speaking to both companies on an impartial basis. We will always act in the UK’s national interest; actually, it is under this Government that we have seen the changes introduced to the takeover code to provide greater transparency and give target firms more time to respond. There is a narrow range of scenarios where Ministers can intervene on mergers on public interest grounds, but we will always ensure that we act in the national interest.

Andrew Selous: Some 3,157 medical students are going into general practice this year, which is excellent news, but we are still losing too many experienced GPs in their mid-50s due to the tax penalties on their old pension scheme. Would the Government look at a targeted, time-limited exemption on this dedicated group of clinicians, who do so much for the health of us all?

Theresa May: That is an important point. As my hon. Friend will know, experienced senior hospital doctors and GPs who become members of the national health service pension scheme benefit from one of the best available defined benefit occupational pension schemes. We provide generous tax reliefs to allow everyone to build up a pension pot worth just over £1 million tax-free. The issue that my hon. Friend is raising is that although GPs are not penalised if they work after age 55, many may have exhausted the generous allowance for tax relief available by that time. I can say to my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, of course, listening to the question that he raised.

Virendra Sharma: This year, 13 April represents the 99th anniversary of what happened at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, India, known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which more than 1,000 peaceful protesters were murdered by soldiers under the command of General Dyer. Will the Prime Minister join me in commemorating the massacre and meet me and others who are campaigning for this shameful episode to be remembered across  the UK?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific issue and a very specific point. I will be happy to look at the question he has raised and respond to him in writing.

Leo Docherty: In my constituency, Farnborough, in the borough of Rushmoor, is the birthplace of British aviation and is now home  to a thriving range of aviation, aerospace and defence businesses—including Airbus, with its Zephyr. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in extending   our best wishes to the Zephyr team as they look forward to making a world-record-breaking attempt for high altitude unmanned aviation?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing all the very best to the Zephyr team in the attempt that they are making. He is right that his constituency plays a crucial role in the aerospace industry. I am pleased to say that we are continuing to work with that industry through the aerospace growth partnership to ensure that we can further enhance the industry. We wish the Zephyr team well.

Bill Esterson: The UK has the lowest growth in the G7. Why is the Government’s answer to that to give handouts to some of the wealthiest bankers, to fund an already lavish lifestyle, paid for by taking the crumbs off the table of those on universal credit, whose children depend on free school meals?

Theresa May: First, the hon. Gentleman might not have noticed but the wealthiest 1% of people in this country are now paying a bigger share of tax—28%—than they ever did under a Labour Government. If he is referring to the bank levy, may I also say to him that the Conservative party introduced the bank levy, which has raised £15 billion and is predicted to raise a further £11 billion that we can spend on public services. It is the Conservative Government who are changing the way we do it, so that we do it in a better way. We will be raising nearly £19 billion extra from the banks over the next five years—that is £3 billion more from the banks to be spent on public services.

Neil Parish: Great British food is produced by hard-working farming families in this country. As we produce a new British agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that supporting food production in this country is a public good?

Theresa May: I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of food production in this country. I am also happy to commend the work of hard-working farmers up and down the country, and all those who work in our food production industry. As he will know, we now have an historic opportunity as we leave the EU to deliver a farming policy that will work for the whole industry.

Bridget Phillipson: Just minutes ago, Facebook announced that it would be taking down several pages associated with the extremist group Britain First. Does the Prime Minister join me in welcoming that? Does she not also accept that there needs to be a clear role provided by Government to give guidance to social media companies on how they operate in our democracy?

Theresa May: I certainly welcome that announcement by Facebook, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been working with these companies to ensure that they do more and act more clearly in taking down material of an extremist nature. I am very pleased to welcome the announcement that Facebook has made and I hope other companies will follow.

Anne Marie Morris: First, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on her pioneering work in fighting modern-day slavery? However, has she been advised that a central plank of her law enforcement policy is not working, with 65 prosecutions of traffickers abandoned last year because victims feared for their safety and no reparations orders made against convicted traffickers to compensate victims for their ordeals?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. At the meeting of the modern slavery taskforce that I chaired recently—two weeks ago, I think it was—in which I have brought together people not only from across government, but from law enforcement, criminal justice more generally and other areas to look at how we are working on this issue, we were addressing exactly how we can ensure that more prosecutions go ahead in future and perpetrators are brought to justice.

Vernon Coaker: Shockingly, in 2017 in this country, 2,120 children were identified as potential victims of child slavery. I know of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to tackling this issue, but surely we ought to have more data. We have no idea how many of those children go missing. We have no idea how many are deported. We have no idea how many are re-trafficked. In 2018, in this country, a modern democracy, that is simply not good enough. Will the Prime Minister tell us what she is going to do about it?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue. It has been a concern for a long time that we sometimes see children who have been identified as the victims of slavery and of human trafficking in a position, sadly, of being taken out by traffickers and resubmitted to the horrible circumstances that that brings to them. On the point he is making about asylum and deportation, we do not return unaccompanied children who do not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection unless we can confirm that safe and adequate reception programmes and arrangements are in place in their home country. If we cannot confirm such arrangements, we grant temporary leave until the child is 17 and a half. Last October, we confirmed our commitment to rolling out independent child trafficking advocates across the country. This is a system we piloted previously, which will give support to those child victims to ensure that they are given the support they need and that they do not fall back into the hands of traffickers.

Lucy Allan: Like many towns and cities throughout the country, Telford has experienced some distressing cases of child sexual exploitation. The authorities in Telford have now agreed to conduct an independent inquiry to find out what happened and to give victims answers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating two brave women—campaigner Holly Archer and Sunday Mirror journalist Geraldine McKelvie —on their work in bringing that about? Will she agree to do everything possible to ensure that the inquiry starts without delay and leaves no stone unturned?

Theresa May: We have all been shocked by the horrific case in Telford of some of the most vulnerable in our country being preyed upon by ruthless criminals. Of course, it is sadly not the first example that we have  seen in our country. I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Holly and Geraldine on their work. It is not easy, but it is right that they have brought this case to light and that action can be taken. I am pleased that the authorities are now going to conduct an inquiry. As my hon. Friend says, it is important that that inquiry begins its work in order to get to the truth and does so as quickly as possible. I understand that my hon. Friend will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), to discuss this issue.

Jo Platt: Shortly after the Prime Minister took office, she said that she wanted to put the Government on the side of the poorest in society. She even stood in front of a crumbling sign that said that she wanted “a country that works for everyone”. However, a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report stated that 37% of children are set to live in poverty by 2022, so what went wrong, Prime Minister?

Theresa May: We have seen 200,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty under this Government. We continue to take action to ensure that we are helping families to get a regular income by helping people into work. We are ensuring that the lowest paid in our society get a pay increase through increasing the national living wage and we are helping people with their standard of living by cutting taxes for 31 million people.

David Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inspirational Music Man Project in Southend, which works with people who have learning difficulties, has now set a world record for tinkling the highest number of triangles ever? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is yet another reason why Southend should be made a city? Will she and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), please organise a contest so that Southend-on-Sea can become the first post-Brexit city?

Theresa May: I am happy to congratulate the Music Man Project in Southend on that record in tinkling triangles. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has heard my hon. Friend’s bid for Southend to become a city. I must say to him that a number of Members will of course put forward their own towns for that accolade in due course. I knew a city had to have a cathedral; I did not know that it had to have tinkling triangles.

Vincent Cable: The Prime Minister will be aware that this week the notorious rapist John Worboys was released from high-security prison. One of my constituents, who gave evidence at his trial as a victim, wants to know why Worboys was not tested first in open prison conditions and why the Parole Board is not required to publish the reasoning behind its release decisions, including evidence of contrition.

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a case is currently before the courts, and I understand that as part of that case the Parole Board will be required to explain the reasons why it took the decision it did. In terms of the overall issue of Parole Board  decisions and their transparency, when this decision became clear, the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, called for work to be done to look into the whole question of Parole Board decisions and the transparency around them, and that work is continuing under the current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

Heidi Allen: I am immensely proud to have the world-leading research and teaching hospital of Addenbrooke’s in my constituency. Its scale and excellence means that it relies heavily on doctors from overseas, but of late it has struggled to bring some of those doctors in because of restrictions on the tier 2 visa numbers. With applications from the EU also falling, it is becoming a real problem. Can the Prime Minister reassure me and my hospital that she is aware of the challenge and that she has a plan to address it?

Theresa May: I am aware of that particular issue. In the longer term, one of the things that we are doing is ensuring that we can train more doctors here in the United Kingdom, but I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised and I will look into it.

Laura Smith: Last year the Prime Minister acknowledged that our social care system is broken and promised to fix it. Since then, two care providers in Crewe and Nantwich have been placed into special measures and another is worried that it may have to close due to a lack of funding. What does the Prime Minister say to providers who say that the local government settlement does not go far enough and that they cannot afford to wait for the Government’s Green Paper?

Theresa May: As the hon. Lady will know, I have always said that there were some short-term, medium-term and long-term measures that needed to be taken in relation to pressure on social care. In the short term, we have provided more funding for local authorities— £2 billion extra was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and we are seeing more money going into social care in local authorities. In the medium term, we need to ensure that best practice is spread across the whole country and—she mentioned the Green Paper—we also need to ensure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable funding model for social care. That is what we continue to work on.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is sadly a matter of public record that RBS and HBOS deliberately asset-stripped thousands of potentially viable businesses to benefit their own banks or individual bankers. Evidence before the High Court indicates that Lloyds may also be guilty of the same. Will the Prime Minister consider the calls of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking—endorsed by the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, Andrew Bailey—for a full public inquiry into this disgraceful scandal?

Theresa May: This issue is of concern to many. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and we need to ensure that we learn the lessons from what   happened at RBS and HBOS. As my hon. Friend will know, the FCA has reported areas of widespread inappropriate treatment of firms by RBS, which has apologised and set up a scheme for compensation for victims. There is an ongoing investigation being conducted by the FCA into RBS, and it is also undertaking two separate investigations into HBOS. We will continue to work with the independent regulator and the industry to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses get the support they need.

Catherine West: Just since Christmas there have been five high-profile gun crimes in Haringey, including one last Thursday when a 19-year-old man, Kelvin Udunie, was shot in the head, the marksman being a pillion rider on the back of a moped, at the entrance to a cinema in Wood Green. We know that our streets are plagued by knife crime. The intent to kill with a gun takes the epidemic to a whole new level. This cannot go on and it must stop. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and community leaders to put an end to this epidemic of gun crime?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Lady meets the Home Secretary, who will shortly publish a strategy in relation to the issue of serious violence. The use of mopeds for mugging has been known for some time, and my right hon. Friend is already looking at and working on that with the police. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Lady on the issue of gun crime.

Peter Bone: I agree entirely with the question from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). The Prime Minister has done more than anyone in the House to end the terrible issue of modern-day slavery, but we have a problem with the treatment of child victims. They are put in the care of local authorities and, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are then re-trafficked. Can we look at having a system, as we do for adults, in which safe homes are provided centrally, not by local government, so re-trafficking cannot occur?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend follows up the question of the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) with an important point about the child victims of trafficking. I will certainly look at this issue. Having independent child advocates, to whom I referred in my response to the hon. Member for Gedling, is one way in which we can give greater support to child victims in order to ensure that they are not lost to the local authorities and re-trafficked. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a scandal when a victim goes into the care of a local authority, and somebody is then able to come along, remove them from that care and take them back into slavery.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order.

SALISBURY INCIDENT: FURTHER UPDATE

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the response of the Russian Government to the incident in Salisbury.
First, on behalf of the whole House, let me pay tribute once again to the bravery and professionalism of all the emergency services, doctors, nurses and investigation teams who have led the response to this appalling incident, and also to the fortitude of the people of Salisbury. I reassure them that, as Public Health England has made clear, the ongoing risk to public health is low, and the Government will continue to do everything possible to support this historic city to recover fully.
On Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok—a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations—including against former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets—the UK Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. There are only two plausible explanations: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country; or, conceivably, the Russian Government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.
It was right to offer Russia the opportunity to provide an explanation, but its response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. The Russian Government have provided no credible explanation that could suggest that they lost control of their nerve agent, no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom, and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law. Instead it has treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.
There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter, and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. As I set out on Monday, it has taken place against the backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore be met with a full and robust response beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
As the discussion in this House on Monday made clear, it is essential that we now come together with our allies to defend our security, to stand up for our values and to send a clear message to those who would seek to undermine them. This morning I chaired a further meeting of the National Security Council, where we agreed immediate actions to dismantle the Russian espionage network in the UK, urgent work to develop new powers to tackle all forms of hostile state activity and to ensure that those seeking to carry out such activity cannot enter the UK, and additional steps to suspend all planned high-level contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.
Let me start with the immediate actions. The House will recall that, following the murder of Mr Litvinenko, the UK expelled four diplomats. Under the Vienna convention, the United Kingdom will now expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers. They have just one week to leave. This will be the single biggest expulsion for over 30 years and it reflects the fact that this is not the first time that the Russian state has acted against our country. Through these expulsions, we will fundamentally degrade Russian intelligence capability in the UK for years to come, and if Russia seeks to rebuild it, we will prevent it from doing so.
We will also urgently develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity. This will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of hostile state activity at the UK border. This power is currently only permitted in relation to those suspected of terrorism. And I have asked the Home Secretary to consider whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.
As I set out on Monday, we will also table a Government amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill to strengthen our powers to impose sanctions in response to the violation of human rights. In doing so, we will play our part in an international effort to punish those responsible for the sorts of abuses suffered by Sergei Magnitsky. I hope, as with all the measures I am setting out today, that this will command cross-party support.
We will also make full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and of our allies. So we will increase checks on private flights, customs and freight. We will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. Led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people, or their money, in our country.
Let me be clear. While our response must be robust, it must also remain true to our values as a liberal democracy that believes in the rule of law. Many Russians have made this country their home, abide by our laws, and make an important contribution to our country which we must continue to welcome. But to those who seek to do us harm, my message is simple: you are not welcome here.
Let me turn to our bilateral relationship. As I said on Monday, we have had a very simple approach to Russia: engage but beware. I continue to believe that it is not in our national interest to break off all dialogue between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. But in the aftermath of this appalling act against our country, this relationship cannot be the same. So we will suspend all planned high-level bilateral contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. This includes revoking the invitation to Foreign Minister Lavrov to pay a reciprocal visit to the UK and confirming that there will be no attendance by Ministers, or indeed members of the royal family, at this summer’s World cup in Russia.
Finally, we will deploy a range of tools from across the full breadth of our national security apparatus in order to counter the threats of hostile state activity. While I have set out some of these measures today, Members on all sides will understand that there are some that cannot be shared publicly for reasons of national security. And of course there are other measures we stand ready to deploy at any time should we face further Russian provocation.
None of the actions we take is intended to damage legitimate activity or prevent contacts between our populations. We have no disagreement with the people of Russia, who have been responsible for so many great achievements throughout their history. Many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope. We wanted a better relationship, and it is tragic that President Putin has chosen to act in this way. But we will not tolerate the threat to the life of British people and others on British soil from the Russian Government. Nor will we tolerate such a flagrant breach of Russia’s international obligations.
As I set out on Monday, the United Kingdom does not stand alone in confronting Russian aggression. In the last 24 hours I have spoken to President Trump, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. We have agreed to co-operate closely in responding to this barbaric act and to co-ordinate our efforts to stand up for the rules-based international order which Russia seeks to undermine. I will also speak to other allies and partners in the coming days. I welcome the strong expressions of support from NATO and from partners across the European Union and beyond. Later today in New York, the UN Security Council will hold open consultations where we will be pushing for a robust international response. We have also notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about Russia’s use of this nerve agent, and we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis.
This was not just an act of attempted murder in Salisbury, nor just an act against the UK. It is an affront to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and it is an affront to the rules-based system on which we and our international partners depend. We will work with our allies and partners to confront such actions wherever they threaten our security, at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and echo her words about the service of our emergency and public services.
The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence. Nerve agents are abominable if used in any war. It is utterly reckless to use them in a civilian environment. This attack in Britain has concerned our allies in the European Union, NATO and the UN, and their words of solidarity have strengthened our position diplomatically. Our response as a country must be guided by the rule of law, support for international agreements and respect for human rights. When it comes to the use of chemical weapons on British soil, it is essential that the Government work with the United Nations to strengthen its chemical weapons monitoring system and involve the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Prime Minister said on Monday:
“either this was a direct act by the Russian state…or the Russian Government lost control of their potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 620-21.]
Our response must be decisive, proportionate and based on clear evidence. If the Government believe that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact that the police are working with the OPCW.
Has the Prime Minister taken the necessary steps under the chemical weapons convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian Government under article IX(2)? How has she responded to the Russian Government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run their own tests? Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent, and has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
Can the Prime Minister update the House on what conversations, if any, she has had with the Russian Government? While suspending planned high-level contacts, does she agree that is essential to retain a robust dialogue with Russia, in the interests of our own and wider international security?
With many countries speaking out alongside us, the circumstances demand that we build an international consensus to address the use of chemical weapons. We should urge our international allies to join us in calling on Russia to reveal without delay full details of its chemical weapons programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is, as we on the Labour Benches have expressed before, a matter of huge regret that our country’s diplomatic capacity has been stripped back, with cuts of 25% in the last five years. It is—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. There will be adequate opportunity for colleagues on both sides of the House to put questions. Members must be heard.

Jeremy Corbyn: I could not understand a word of what the Foreign Secretary just said, but his behaviour demeans his office.
It is in moments such as these that Governments realise how vital strong diplomacy and political pressure are for our security and national interest. The measures we take have to be effective, not just for the long-term security of our citizens but to secure a world free of chemical weapons. Can the Prime Minister outline what discussions she has had with our partners in the European Union, NATO and the UN and what willingness there was to take multilateral action? While the poisonings of Sergei and Yulia Skripal are confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the death of Mr Skripal’s wife, Liudmila, who died in 2012, and the deaths of his elder brother and son in the past two years?
We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by the Putin Government and their supporters, both at home and abroad, and I join many others in this House in paying tribute to the many campaigners in Russia for human rights, justice and  democracy in that country. We must do more to address the dangers posed by the state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs. We must also expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who become stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently use London to protect their wealth. We welcome the Prime Minister today clearly committing to support the Magnitsky amendments and implementing them as soon as possible, as Labour has long pushed for.
Yesterday Nikolai Glushkov, a Russian exile who was close friends with the late oligarch Boris Berezovsky, was found dead in his London home. What reassurances can the Prime Minister give to citizens of Russian origin living in Britain that they are safe here?
The events in Salisbury earlier this month are abominable and have been rightly condemned across the House. Britain has to build a consensus with our allies, and we support the Prime Minister in taking multilateral and firm action to ensure that we strengthen the chemical weapons convention and that this dreadful, appalling act, which we totally condemn, never happens again in our country.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about the nerve agent that had been used. He asked whether we were putting together an international coalition to call on Russia to reveal the details of its chemical weapons programme to the OPCW. That is indeed what we did. We gave the Russian Government the opportunity, through the démarche that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary delivered to the Russian ambassador in London earlier this week, to do just that. They have not done so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the corrupt elites and money going through London. As I said in my statement, led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people or their money in our country, and that work is ongoing.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting an international consensus together. As I said, I have spoken to Chancellor Merkel, President Trump and President Macron. Others have also expressed their support. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary-General, said:
“We stand in solidarity with our Allies in the United Kingdom”
and
“Those responsible—both those who committed the crime and those who ordered it—must face appropriately serious consequences.”
The NATO Council has expressed deep concern at the first offensive use of a nerve agent on alliance territory since NATO’s foundation, and allies agreed the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements. Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, said:
“I express my full solidarity with PM @theresa_may in the face of the brutal attack inspired, most likely, by Moscow. I’m ready to put the issue on next week’s #EUCO agenda.”
We will be doing that.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of our diplomacy or of what diplomatic support we have around the world. This is a question of the  culpability of the Russian state for an act on our soil. He said that we should be trying to build a consensus. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with allies that we have a consensus with our allies. It was clear from the remarks made by Back Benchers across the whole House on Monday that there is a consensus across the Back Benches of this House. I am only sorry that the consensus does not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman, who could have taken the opportunity, as the UK Government have done, to condemn the culpability of the Russian state.

Kenneth Clarke: It seems to me, without any access to closed information, that the use of this particularly bizarre and dreadful way of killing an individual is a deliberate choice by the Russian Government to put their signature on a particular killing so that other defectors are left in no doubt that it is the Russian Government who will act if they are disappointed in any way by those people’s actions. In the light of that, the only sensible question the Leader of the Opposition asked was what consultation we propose to have with NATO, other European countries and the American Government about positive action that could be taken to prevent this continuing defiance of international law, and the defiance of all rules on the testing and possession of chemical weapons. This is not just a question of expressing our anger about Salisbury. This is actually a serious threat to the safety of the western world unless and until we all do something together to get the Russians to do something, as opposed to simply ignoring us.

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is why not only are we talking to allies bilaterally, but there will, as I understand it, be a meeting of the NATO Council tomorrow at which this issue will be considered. The President of the EU Council has said that he will be putting this on the agenda of the European Union Council meeting at the end of next week.
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: while we rightly focus initially on the use of this nerve agent here in the UK and its impact on us here in the UK, this is about the illegal use of chemical weapons by the Russian state and an illegal programme of developing those chemical weapons by the Russian state. We will leave no stone unturned in working with our allies to ensure that we respond appropriately to that.

Ian Blackford: Let me thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement.
As the Prime Minister has said, the attack on Mr Skripal and his daughter was an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. There has to be a robust response to the use of terror on our streets. We must act in a measured way to show that we will simply not tolerate this behaviour. In that regard, I welcome, and associate those of us on the Scottish National party Benches with, the measures contained in the statement. On this matter, I commit my party to working constructively with the Government.
I am sure that the House will join me in extending thanks to the members of the police and security services who are working around the clock on the recent case in Salisbury. It has been warming to see our closest friends  and allies across Europe expressing solidarity and support. Our friends globally must join with us by standing up to this abuse of state power by Russia. I look forward to the discussions in the United Nations, which must speak with a clear and unambiguous voice.
The fact that we are expelling the largest number of undeclared intelligence officers in over 30 years is welcome, as is the desire to examine what can be done from a legislative perspective to defend against hostile state activity. As someone who has previously supported so-called Magnitsky measures, I am pleased that the Government are signalling action in this area. Let me commend the actions of Bill Browder—I have had the opportunity to meet him—who has personally been at massive risk, but has stood up to the effects of Russian state power.
Financial sanctions are welcome, and we must redouble our efforts against any money laundering by those responsible. It must be made clear to the Russian authorities that we will not tolerate activities that infringe international law. While we support the PM’s actions, we will continue to scrutinise them carefully, and we must ensure that any proposed legislation is properly scrutinised.
Our thoughts are with those in Russia who have suffered due to the abuse of state power. There is no doubt that that is what we are seeing. In doing so, we look forward to a time when we can engage positively, and to a time of peace and co-operation, but the only response today must be a robust one towards the Kremlin and Russia.

Theresa May: May I, once again, thank the right hon. Gentleman not just for the tone of his response, but for the comments that he has made? I reassure him that, of course, any legislative proposals we bring forward will have due scrutiny in this House. May I thank him for his constructive offer to work with the Government on this issue, because it is a matter that should concern us across the whole House? I reassure him that, although I made reference to a number of allies who have spoken in support of the United Kingdom on this, others have done so too? Canada and Australia, for example, have also been very clear that a robust response is appropriate. Once again, I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I commend my right hon. Friend for her strong leadership and for rising to this challenge? Some in positions of leadership have also risen to the challenge, and I am only sorry that others in such positions have fallen well short.
In the conversations my right hon. Friend is due to have with her allies, which she is quite right to have, will she raise with the German Government the issue of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on which they are engaged with the Russians? It will cut revenues for Ukraine and eastern Europe, and give Russia an unparalleled ability to bully those countries in the future. If Russia is, as we now believe, a rogue state, will she try to persuade our allies in Europe and elsewhere not to treat with it or help to make it better off?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the things we will be discussing with our allies is how we ensure that the robust message about the act that has taken place on UK soil is consistently given,  and continues to be given, by all our allies. Nord Stream 2 is regularly discussed at the European Union Council, as my right hon. Friend would, I suspect, imagine.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Her conclusion about the culpability of the Russian state is immensely serious. In addition to its breaches of international law, its use of chemical weapons and its continued disregard for the rule of law and human rights, that must be met with unequivocal condemnation. May I welcome the measures she has taken to downgrade the intelligence capability of the Russian state, and particularly the work that I understand has started with the United Nations? Within the United Nations, it is important to expose what the Russians are doing and to build the broadest possible support against them. Will she say a bit more about what she is doing on that front?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Lady for the strength of the statement she has just made, which I know is representative of the views of many of her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches. We are taking this matter to the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the UN Secretary-General about this issue. The open discussion that is taking place tomorrow is the start of the process of looking at this issue. As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), this is not just about the incident that has taken place here in the United Kingdom; it is about the use of chemical weapons—this illegal use of chemical weapons—that has taken place, and about the role of the Russian state in the development of chemical weapons, contrary to international law.

Julian Lewis: No reasonable person can possibly doubt that the Russian Government have behaved with arrogance, inhumanity and contempt, not least in failing to respond to the Prime Minister’s deadline, which they surely would have done if they had known that they were innocent of this charge. In welcoming the Prime Minister’s expulsion of 23 diplomats who are really intelligence agents, may I ask her to make it clear that any retaliation in kind by the Russian Government will be met by further expulsions, perhaps including even of the ambassador, who spends so much time coming to talk to us in this place, bemoaning the poor state of Anglo-Russian relations? Does she accept that Russia traditionally respects strength and despises weakness, and that the time has come to recognise that 2% of GDP is not enough to spend on defence when we are reverting to the sort of adversarial relationship that we had when we spent a much higher proportion of GDP on ensuring that this country was well defended?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. In response to his first point, as I said in my statement, there are other measures that we stand ready to deploy at any time, should we face further Russian provocation. On his other point, as we review our national security capability and our modernising defence programme, we are ensuring that we have the resources and capabilities available to deal with the variety and diversity of threats that this country faces. However, as those threats diversify, not all of them will be responded to by what is conventionally considered to be defence.

Vincent Cable: I and my party fully support the Prime Minister’s statement and position. What is her response to the brave leader of the opposition in Russia, Alexei Navalny, who is not allowed to stand in the presidential election and has said that the most effective action the British Government can take is to use their legal powers, such as unexplained wealth orders, against named individuals who are critical to the Putin operation? He names in particular Mr Alisher Usmanov, who has substantial property and sporting interests, and the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Igor Shuvalov, who owns, among other things, a £14 million flat overlooking the Ministry of Defence. Will the Prime Minister act?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions. As I said in my statement, we do, of course, look at issues regarding corrupt elites and criminal finances, and at using the tools and capabilities at our disposal. The National Crime Agency is continuing that work.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank the Prime Minister for her impressive leadership. I associate myself—unusually—with the leader of the Liberal Democrats in calling for greater use of unexplained wealth orders. Will the Prime Minister also use the tools at her disposal to expose the wealth of the Putin family, given that $300 billion or more has been stolen from the Russian people by that man? We should expose him for what he is, and not be a useful idiot hiding behind the legalism of his crimes.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. Unexplained wealth orders are, of course, tools that we use, but we have to use them properly, in accordance with the rule of law, following due process.

Liz Kendall: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, agree with her analysis and fully support the Government’s actions. I understand that the Foreign Office has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. What does the Prime Minister think will be the likely result, given that one permanent member is engaging in unlawful attacks on another? Does she share my concern that Russia’s actions in this country, in Ukraine and in backing Assad’s murderous regime in Syria mean that the current Security Council mechanism is broken?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As I said earlier, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General yesterday. Later today in New York, the UN Security Council will hold initial consultations. Obviously Russia is a member of that Security Council, but it is important that we continue to use the international organisations that are available to us. The United Nations is a protector of the international rules-based order. That is what it should be, and we will continue to press for a robust international response.

Andrew Mitchell: It is clear that there is almost unanimous support in the House for my right hon. Friend’s proportionate and right response to this crisis. In particular, she is absolutely right to use the mechanisms of the United Nations to make it clear to everyone what has happened in this  case. Will she also bear in mind that Russia has, either indirectly or directly, authorised and used chemical weapons in Syria? I thank her for what she has said about the Magnitsky amendment, which many of us across the House have been working on for some time. I hope that she will consider implementing it in full, as has happened in America and in Canada.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend picks up on a point made in the previous question: this is not simply one act by Russia, but part of a pattern of various actions, including those in Syria, the illegal annexation of Crimea and its activities in the Donbass. They also include the Russian state’s use of propaganda and its attempts to interfere in elections across the continent of Europe. In response to my right hon. Friend’s second point, we will bring forward a Government amendment to reflect the Magnitsky considerations to ensure that we have the strongest possible means to deal with the issues.

Sammy Wilson: We welcome the decisive action taken by the Prime Minister today, which sits in contrast to the policy of appeasement that we have heard from the Labour party Front Bench. I am sure that the people of the United Kingdom are pleased that it is the Prime Minister who is standing behind the Dispatch Box, defending the rule of law and the citizens of this country. She says that she has spoken to our allies over the past couple of days. Apart from words of support, what are the actions to which they have committed to ensure that a message is sent out about this and future actions?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the Democratic Unionist party’s support for the Government’s action. On actions to be taken by international allies, they were, of course, waiting for us to announce the various actions that we will take following the decision taken by the National Security Council this morning. We will hold further discussions with our allies about how they can support what we are doing through taking actions themselves.

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her response to this outrageous attack. Does she agree that the difficulty we face lies not so much in getting the concurrence of our allies in agreeing the nature of the outrage, but in how we craft a sustained strategy so that those of us who believe in the rules-based international system can apply the necessary leverage and persuasion on Russia to conform to it? The very serious risk that we run is that if we do not succeed in doing that, the level of violence that Russia will exercise with impunity against other states and us will simply increase. Our allies in particular must have regard to that if we are to make any progress.

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct that we need to address this issue in that wider sense, because it is about the way in which the Russian state is acting—it believes, with impunity—in a whole variety of ways, and the way in which it is flouting the international rules-based order. We must come together as allies to ensure that we support that international rules-based order and that we have not  just a collective agreement, but a collective approach that ensures that we can challenge what Russia is doing. He is also right that one of the points we should be making to our allies is that while this may have happened in the United Kingdom, it could be happening in any of those states.

Hilary Benn: I join others in welcoming the measures that the Prime Minister has announced today. As Russia has chosen to act against us in such an outrageous way, we have to demonstrate our determination to defend ourselves. Given that Russia’s usual response is to deny all responsibility for such actions, does she intend, as well as seeking the assistance of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in identifying the sample, to ask for that organisation to carry out an investigation, as any member state is entitled to do, including an inspection of any facilities or locations in Russia, where this nerve agent in all probability was produced?

Theresa May: We will be talking to the OPCW about not just the ways in which the sample of the nerve agent used here in the United Kingdom can be independently verified, but other actions the OPCW might be able to take.

Nicholas Soames: I welcome the decision of the Government to refer the patiently and carefully acquired evidence of this grotesque attack to the OPCW. Is it the Prime Minister’s intention that its findings should be referred to the Russians, the United Nations and ourselves? Will she consider, in the light of those findings, going further on unexplained wealth orders and other financial sanctions against Russia if necessary?

Theresa May: We are asking the OPCW to independently verify this, so the nature of this nerve agent can be clear to everyone. As I said earlier, we introduced, operate and use unexplained wealth orders, but we will always ensure that they are done on evidence. We operate according to the rule of law.

Margaret Hodge: I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear statement, her condemnation of the Russians and the action she has taken. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Government are adopting the Magnitsky amendment. Too much money laundered out of Russia is finding its way into the British system. There are two things she could do pretty quickly which would help to tackle that. First, she could bring forward the public register of ownership of properties, which was promised by her predecessor in 2015 and has been delayed by this Government. Secondly, she could increase transparency in our corporate structures, so that we know who forms companies here and where the money comes from, and deal with it if it is illicit money brought in by unsavoury people.

Theresa May: On transparency in relation to property ownership, I have discussed that with the Business Secretary. We have not been delaying. We need to ensure that we get it right when we introduce it—we have been discussing the timing for introducing it—because  we want to ensure we have all the tools in our locker that we can use and that can help us in the endeavour we are engaged in.

Nicky Morgan: I absolutely 100% support the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions she is taking. Following on from the previous question, I want to pick up on the Prime Minister’s statement that there is no place for serious criminals and corrupt elites, or their money, in our country. There are amendments, which I am sure Parliament will support, but will the Prime Minister also bear it in mind that the Select Committees could have a real role in teasing out information about what is going on to tackle dirty money in this country, whether in the City of London or elsewhere, to bring evidence to the House that could shape amendments and actions the Government could then take?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for her suggestion. I recognise the role that Select Committees can play. I suspect that my right hon. Friend has just set up a stream of work for her own Treasury Committee to undertake.

Ben Bradshaw: I assure the Prime Minister that most of us on the Labour Benches fully support the measures she has announced today. Indeed, some of us think they could have come a bit sooner. On the wider issue of Putin’s hybrid warfare against our country, will she task the intelligence and security services to investigate Putin’s influencing operations in our universities, our think-tanks, our financial institutions and our political parties?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the propaganda activities being undertaken by the Russian state. I will certainly look at the suggestions he makes.

Simon Hoare: We should all be thanking God today that it is my right hon. Friend in her place and not the so-called alternative. I am not expecting my right hon. Friend to comment on the detail, but this morning residents in Hyde road in Gillingham in my constituency saw the Metropolitan police and the Army in place, the street in lockdown, and vehicles and items linked to the Salisbury incident removed. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give a running commentary on current operations, but can she confirm two things: first, that she, the Government and the security services are doing all they can to keep my constituents safe; and, secondly, that she can arrange for somebody to provide a briefing to me, as the Member of Parliament, as to precisely what is happening?

Theresa May: I am very happy to do that. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the police investigation continues. We cannot say where that investigation will take the police in terms of their further inquiries, but I will ensure that he is provided with a briefing as the Member of Parliament.

Chris Bryant: I completely support everything the Prime Minister has said today. The truth is that under Putin the Russian Federation has managed to combine all the worst facets of communism and all  the worst facets of rampant capitalism, all wrapped up inside a national security state that keeps its people poor and kills his political opponents. May I ask about the Russian ambassador? Since Alexander Yakovenko arrived, he has repeatedly lied to parliamentarians. He has tried to get Mr Speaker to stop debates on Russia happening in this House and he has tried to interfere in the internal elections of this House. Surely to God, it is time we now told him that we will order our affairs in this country, not him, and he can go home?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we will order our affairs in this country and we will not be told what to do by the Russian ambassador. I fully expect the House authorities to ensure that it is not possible for an external party to interfere in elections in this House. I would also say that it is a brave man who tries to tell the Speaker of the House of Commons what to do and to stand anything down.

John Bercow: I must say, for the avoidance of doubt, that he got absolutely nowhere with me. The House can be sure about that.

Anna Soubry: It is noticeable that the length and breadth of this place has completely supported not just the wise words and leadership of the Prime Minister but her firm actions, with the notable exception of those on the Opposition Front Bench. That was a shameful moment. Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), democracy is a fundamental British value and there are long-held concerns that Russia has been seeking to undermine it and interfere in it. If those concerns now turn to evidence, will she take equally robust action against Russia to ensure that our great British democracy continues to be protected?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give the assurance to my right hon. Friend of the action we take. We recognise that the first duty of Government is to safeguard the nation. We treat the security and integrity of our democratic processes, as of everything else in this country, very seriously. In terms of disinformation used by the Kremlin, we know that they persistently use it to destabilise perceived enemies. Managing that is a long-term priority for the UK. We will continue to work not just as the United Kingdom but with our international partners on efforts to counter that.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr. Alongside many colleagues in the House, I speak on behalf of my party in calling for a robust and immediate response. Sources inform us that Russia is the UK’s biggest weapons-grade nuclear substances export market, despite several attempts at a moratorium on depleted uranium by the European Parliament and the United Nations. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the UK is still exporting nuclear substances to Russia? If so, surely this should be among the very first sanctions imposed?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for the support that she has given from her party for the actions that the Government are taking. What we have been talking about today is the use of a nerve agent—of a chemical weapon—on UK soil and  the blatant flouting of the international rules-based order and legal structure around that use of chemical weapons by the Russian state.

John Hayes: When I served as Security Minister and my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary, I became aware both of her outstanding determination and dedication and of the commitment and expertise of our security services and the police that deal with counter-terrorism. She knows, as the House knows, that that is led by the Metropolitan police, but this event happened in Salisbury and could have happened in Berkshire or Lincolnshire. Will she ask the Home Secretary to look at whether our local police forces, given the dynamic nature of these threats, are equipped and informed adequately to deal with them in the first instance?

Theresa May: As a former Security Minister, my right hon. Friend has a particular understanding of these issues. The ability to bring in the capabilities of the counter-terrorism police, who do not just operate in the Metropolitan police, as he knows, but have regional bases around the country, is part of the layered structure that we have in relation to police forces. I am sure that he will be making sure that the police look at the immediate response that they had to this incident. We certainly do not want to see an incident of this type happening again on United Kingdom soil and that is why we are giving a very clear message to the Russian state, but we do want to ensure that all our police forces are aware of the threats that they may face.

Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister’s words were appropriate, measured and correct, and she has my full support. She mentioned dirty money from Russia. Can she look again at the role of tax havens internationally, including those in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he knows, we have been taking a number of measures in relation to financial activities in the British overseas territories and dependencies, and we continue to press on those. Of course, we have enhanced our ability to deal with these issues here in relation to economic crime through the formation of the national economic crime centre. I am pleased to say, having formed the National Crime Agency, that we have now set up that national economic crime centre as part of the NCA, which brings a number of capabilities together to deal with these issues.

Robert Halfon: My constituents of Harlow will be strongly reassured by the way in which my right hon. Friend is guarding the nation’s security. Can I ask her to condemn the remarks of President Putin, who attacked Jews and other nations for meddling in the United States elections? Given that she has also talked about the possible rogue use of these chemical weapons, can I ask her what the prospect is of such chemical weapons ending up in the hands of extreme Islamists?

Theresa May: First of all, I also condemn the remarks that my right hon. Friend referred to that were made in relation to certain communities in the United   States. In relation to the second part of his question, what we are talking about here is a nerve agent that was developed as part of a chemical weapons programme by the Russian state, and I think that will give him a clear message in relation to this.

Derek Twigg: I fully support what the Prime Minister said in her statement and the actions that she outlined today. I have some concerns about whether we have a proper strategy in place to combat chemical weapons attacks against this country and in particular, these small-scale attacks—it is joined up with the security services, the Government and the armed forces. Will she give me some reassurance or tell me whether work is continuing to improve that?

Theresa May: Yes. Obviously, this is an issue that we do look at and we have a strategy in place, but we will ensure, given what has happened, that we review that. We will look again to make sure that we have the best possible opportunity to ensure that this cannot happen again.

Crispin Blunt: While welcoming the Prime Minister’s statement, as almost everyone else has, I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in mentioning the importance of the international rule of law and say that this is a very important moment of decision for China—to decide which side she is going to sit on in this arrangement. I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that we take the most energetic steps to ensure that China stands with the rest of the civilised world on the side of law and responsibility

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in this way. We want to see the maximum possible adherence to the international rules-based order across the whole world. In different contexts, this is a matter that I raised when I was in China recently.

John Bercow: Order. This is an extremely important parliamentary occasion and it is understandable that very large numbers of Members should want to question the Prime Minister. Can I politely suggest that colleagues should seek to ensure that their questions are as succinct as the Prime Minister’s replies have been? That way, we might get through a very great many more quickly than we otherwise would.

Chris Leslie: I add my support to the measures that the Prime Minister has announced and the condemnation of what is increasingly looking like a rogue state. On the question of the integrity of the United Nations Security Council, we must now begin to talk about reform. Russia cannot be allowed to simply sit pretty, thumbing its nose at the rest of the world community and feeling that it is immune from the rule of law internationally. Will she initiate that sort of reform discussion with the Secretary-General?

Theresa May: Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made today and the support that he has given to the Government, as he did on Monday. We talk to the United Nations about reform of the United Nations in a whole variety of ways. The Catch-22 is that any decision that might be taken in the Security Council to reform it could be  subject to a veto by Russia, who are sitting there, but the point has been raised not just by the hon. Gentleman but by others, and this is something that we will look at.

James Brokenshire: The Prime Minister has underlined to the House that the Russian state has either been utterly reckless at best, or at worst, directly complicit in the deployment of a harmful substance on our soil. She said in the statement that she would be taking new measures to harden our defences against hostile state activity. With that in mind, will she ensure that the appropriate balance is provided between counter-terrorism and counter-espionage to ensure that our excellent security and intelligence agencies are appropriately focused to combat and directly disrupt those who would cause harm in our country?

Theresa May: I say to my right hon. Friend, who also, as a former Security Minister, has a particular knowledge and understanding of these issues, that I entirely take the point that he has made. We constantly ensure that the balance is right between counter-terrorism and counter-espionage, and we will of course continue to ensure that that balance is maintained properly.

Pat McFadden: Responding with strength and resolve when your country is under threat is an essential component of political leadership. There is a Labour tradition that understands that, and it has been understood by Prime Ministers of all parties who have stood at that Dispatch Box. That means when chemical weapons are used, we need more than words, but deeds. Can I ask the Prime Minister what more she can do to enhance our solidarity with our allies, particularly at a time when nationalist forces are trying to drive wedges between democratic countries, with some of those forces backed and supported by the Russians themselves?

Theresa May: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a strong tradition in the Labour party of recognising the importance of acting in the national interest and acting when our national security is under threat. We have seen that from Governments of all complexions over the years. In relation to the point about international activity and the deeds that we need to take, it is right—we will be continuing to talk. We have been speaking to our allies, even before this event took place, about the ways in which we could deal with and address some of the activities and actions that Russia is taking across the continent of Europe and elsewhere, but we will of course redouble those efforts now.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of our best assets against Russian disinformation and propaganda is the BBC World Service, and will she consider ways of extending its reach, perhaps by incorporating world television? Does she also agree that we need to be very careful not to give any pretext, however unjustified, for the Russians to take action against the BBC and other free media outlets?

Theresa May: I would hope that the Russian state would be prepared to accept the importance of the free media, but sadly, from one or two things we heard last night, it seems that that might not be the case. My  right hon. Friend is right, however, that the broadcasting of the BBC World Service is an important element of the UK’s reach and an important outlet for those who believe in democracy, the rule of law and free speech and expression.

Alison Thewliss: I was glad to hear the Prime Minister mention the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and I welcome the commitment to the Magnitsky amendment, but she will understand that many opaque Scottish limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships are engaged in money laundering from Russia, via Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, through this country. Will she speak to Cabinet colleagues and consider introducing amendments to the Bill to tackle these corrupt elites, as she put it—because money laundering is happening via Companies House at the moment?

Theresa May: We take money laundering very seriously and have been working for some time with law enforcement and the financial sector on ways to improve the action we take against it. This is one of the things I expect the national economic crime centre to be looking at very closely.

Stephen Crabb: I strongly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has announced today. One way Russia seeks to extend its influence in Europe is by building relationships of energy dependence. Is she aware that Britain has recently started to receive shipments of liquefied natural gas, and does she agree that Britain should not provide a market for Russian gas? If we need to bring in extra LNG imports, we have allies such as Qatar, Malaysia and Australia who are more than willing to sell it to us.

Theresa May: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that in looking at our gas supplies we are indeed looking to other countries.

Vernon Coaker: As a strong advocate for the defence and security of our country, I am another one who supports the Prime Minister’s statement today. I would like to draw her attention to something she said in her statement that I would not want to get lost, which is that although our response must be robust it must also remain true to our values. As such, will she say, as I think she has already, not that we will ban Russia Today, which is a strong point to make, but that this country believes in a free media, that we are not frightened of it, even though we hear opinions that are against us, and that we also believe in the rule of law and democracy?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do believe in the rule of law and democracy and in a free media, although of course the question of the status of Russia Today in broadcasting in the UK is not a matter for the Government but for Ofcom, which is independent, to consider.

Richard Graham: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that our argument is not with the Russian people but with the Russian state, which  has sponsored murder on our streets. Today we have heard absolute solidarity from across the western world and most political parties, but what statement of support has she received from the one political party that gives unequivocal, 100% backing to the Leader of the Opposition, the Communist party of Great Britain?

Theresa May: I do not believe I have received any such statement from the Communist party of Great Britain, although I noticed just one or two weeks ago it said it would not stand candidates against the Labour party and that it now felt more comfortable working with it.

Edward Davey: I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement but urge her to go further and, as others have said, use energy policy as a new way of tackling this Russian threat. We all acknowledge the significant British energy interests in Russia, but will she confirm that Putin’s military and intelligence assets are primarily funded by the sale of Russian fossil fuels, and can I commend to her the EU’s energy security strategy, which was largely written in London and is reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point—one that others across the House have made—about the extent to which Russia uses its energy and the finance it provides to influence and have an impact on countries in receipt of it. I assure him that we will continue to discuss with the EU not just our energy security but the wider energy security issue.

Richard Benyon: Many Members of this House and the other House are members of multilateral parliamentary organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the NATO parliamentary assembly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way we can get behind her leadership and the Government’s position is by getting the message across when we attend events and explaining the Government’s policies, what has happened and why our allies should support us?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend has raised an extremely valuable point. I welcome his suggestion and would encourage him and other Members who are members of those multilateral organisations to do just that.

Stephen Doughty: The Prime Minister will know that I do not shy away from criticising the Government’s international policies when they get it wrong, but she should know that she has my full and unequivocal support for the measures she has set out today. Particularly in the light of the revelations coming out of the Mueller inquiry and some of the other questions today, will she assure us that she will leave no stone unturned when examining the Russian state’s attempts to subvert our parliamentary democracy, whether with human assets or financial, cyber, propaganda or other means, however uncomfortable some of those findings might be for us?

Theresa May: I am happy to give that commitment to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his comments. He is not backwards in coming forwards when he wishes  to criticise the Government, but he has given support to the Government—not just today but on Monday—and I welcome that and thank him.

Maggie Throup: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s clear and decisive actions. Can she reassure British citizens looking to travel to Russia over the coming weeks and months that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will provide regular updates and that their safety will be paramount?

Theresa May: I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I suggest to those who wish to travel to Russia that they check the Foreign Office advice. My understanding is that the travel advice has not changed, but of course people should check that before they leave.

John Woodcock: This is a day for the House to speak as one for the nation. The Prime Minister will be reassured to hear that a clear majority of Labour MPs, alongside the leaders of every other party, support her firm stance. Does she realise that this situation will probably get more difficult before it gets better, and is she prepared to stay the course and face down this international bully and wrecker of liberty and the rule of law across the world?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks—he made a strong statement on Monday in the House as well—and assure him that I and the Government will stay the course. As I said in my statement, we recognise that there might be further Russian provocation. If there is, we have further measures we can deploy, but it is important—and we will encourage our international allies to do this too—that we recognise that this is an important moment to stand up and say to Russia, “No, you cannot do this!”

Desmond Swayne: The Russian economy is a fraction but its expenditure on offensive capability a multiple of ours. Is there a lesson there?

Theresa May: Of course we constantly look at the resources we put in to ensure our national security, which is assured across a number of Departments, and we continue to do so.

Luciana Berger: I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust response today. Further to the confirmation that no Minister or member of the royal family will attend the world cup this summer, does she believe that this should also extend to senior FA officials, and will she ask our NATO and EU allies to join us in this endeavour?

Theresa May: The question of attendance at sporting events is a matter for the sporting authorities. They will be aware of my statement today and that we are saying no Ministers or members of the royal family will attend the world cup, and I am sure they will want to consider their position.

Nigel Evans: As chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, last year I led a delegation to St Petersburg and was met with great warmth and   hospitality by many Russian people. Will the Prime Minister stress that our opposition is not to them but to their appalling leadership? The Russian ambassador has made it clear that we can now expect retaliation. Will she send a clear signal to him and Moscow that the UK will not be threatened?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I think that last night I saw the Russian ambassador quoted as saying that Russia was not a country that accepted ultimatums. Well, I can say to my hon. Friend and others that the United Kingdom is not a country that accepts threats, and we will stand up against them.

Peter Grant: I welcome the Prime Minister’s reminder that we have no argument whatsoever with the people of the Russian Federation, who, after all, are living under Putin’s dictatorship all the time. Inevitably, the action that must be taken against Putin will make it more difficult for organisations that seek to maintain good relations with the ordinary people of the Russian Federation. Is there anything more that the Government can do to help those organisations to continue their good work, even while we are invoking more strict and robust sanctions against their dictator leader?

Theresa May: As I said in my statement, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said in his question, we are very clear about the fact that we have no argument with the Russian people. It is with the Russian state—with the Russian Government and their actions—that we are concerned. I think that in the response that we make, it is important for us to make that clear not just in our words but in our actions. What I have talked about today is a response that affects the Russian state and the Russian Government, but not the Russian people.

John Baron: When it comes to the longer term, given the actions of the Russian state under President Putin, has the time not come for a fundamental reassessment of our defence spending—preferably in collaboration with our allies, but alone if that is not possible?

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend will know, we are one of the limited number of countries in NATO that maintain the commitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence. As I am sure he also knows, the modernising defence programme is currently being undertaken alongside the national security capability review. It is important for us to be able to deal with the variety of threats that we face. However, I must say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to other Members, that as we look at how we deal with those threats, not all of them will be dealt with in a way that would conventionally be considered a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

Madeleine Moon: The Prime Minister has rightly said that the attacks in Britain have been part of an ongoing contempt for Britain, contempt for the rule of law, and contempt for our values. There has also been a contempt for our alliances, both political and military. Will the Prime Minister work with those political and military alliances, so that together we  can bring about a root-and-branch removal of Russian  interference in our political, educational and financial institutions? Let this be a marker: no more. Now they will fear what we will do to hit back at the interference that they have shown us.

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Lady for the commitment that she has shown, as a parliamentarian, to the alliance that we have through NATO, which is very important to us It is the bedrock of European defence. I can certainly say that we will continue to work through those alliances to ensure that we are sending a very clear message that this is not acceptable.

Mark Francois: I commend the Prime Minister for her decisive and vigorous action in response to what was, after all, an attack on the United Kingdom. In some ways it had flashes of the Iron Lady about it. But it was also in stark contrast to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who simply could not bring himself to condemn Russia for this outrageous act.

Emily Thornberry: That is not true.

Mark Francois: He simply could not do it. Is that not because he remains at heart what he has always been—a CND badge-wearing apologist for the Russian state? [Interruption.]

Theresa May: I think that people will draw their own conclusions from what they have heard today, but let me also say to my hon. Friend that I am sure that he, like me, takes great reassurance from the positive messages of support that have come from the Labour Back Benches.

Phil Wilson: Our way of life in this country and in the west is based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law—

Emily Thornberry: When you read Hansard you will see. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Strongly held opinions have been expressed, and everyone can consult the record. I understand that there is an intensity of feeling, but the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) must have his question heard, and then the answer will be heard.

Phil Wilson: Our way of life in this country and in the west is based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and should be defended. That is why the Prime Minister is right to impose sanctions against a state that does not believe in those principles. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to come back to the House if she feels that there is a need for further consideration of sanctions?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I said in my statement that there were further measures that we might wish to deploy if we were subject to further Russian provocation, and  if we choose to do so, I will of course come back to  the House.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the actions of the Russian Federation are totally incompatible with membership of the Council of Europe, which believes in democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and will she ensure that we can expel Russia from the Council of Europe as a reprisal? Its continuing membership seems to fly in the face of our commitment to those important values.

Theresa May: That, too, is an important point. I do not think that it is within the hands only of the United Kingdom to expel Russia from the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will have heard our right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) suggest that Members of Parliament who are members of such multilateral groups should be making every effort to make the point about the illegitimate activity that has been undertaken by Russia.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the measures that she has announced, which will only be strengthened if our allies take similar action. Will she say more about NATO, and tell us whether she will be bringing together NATO Heads of State and Government to discuss a co-ordinated response?

Theresa May: As I think I said earlier, I believe that the North Atlantic Council will be meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue, and I shall be talking to a number of allies within NATO about the co-ordination of the response. As I also said earlier, they have been waiting to hear the details of our response, which I brought first to Parliament.

Bob Seely: The Prime Minister is clearly aware that the Kremlin is using a full spectrum of tools in what it considers to be its “new generation” warfare against the west—and assassination is one element of that. Is she also aware of the important work done in the 1970s and 1980s by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the United States to methodically expose Kremlin subversion, espionage and disinformation, which in that era were called “active measures”—aktivnoye miropviyatnoe? Will she consider the possibility of similar work in this country now? Shining the light of truth on Russian subversion today, whatever one calls it, is a critical part of defending democracy and undermining that Russian subversion.

Theresa May: I was not aware of the details of the work of the Senate Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred, but it is the case that this Government are not afraid to call out Russian actions in public when we see them taking place. I take his point about a more detailed and forensic look at the activities of the Russian state, and I will certainly consider it.

Tony Lloyd: I support the Prime Minister’s strategy, but may I remind her that during the Putin years he has become emboldened, sometimes because our allies, in Europe and internationally, have not always been prepared to face down aggression of this kind in view of their commercial interests? If we are going to stay the course, will the Prime Minister remind our allies that they are as much under threat as we have been with this act of state terror?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. This may have happened on UK soil today, but it could have happened in any one of a number of countries. Other countries are themselves seeing other actions being taken by Russia, such as attempts to interfere in elections, and propaganda and disinformation campaigns. It is important that we work together as far as possible.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: May I add my support for the cool, calm, collected and correct way in which the Prime Minister has responded to a very serious threat to this country? Would she be pleased to know that the First Ministers of both Wales and Scotland have tweeted their support for her and for the action that she has taken, and will she undertake always to keep the devolved Administrations fully informed of what is happening?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know about the tweets put out by the First Ministers in Scotland and Wales. I am pleased to say I will be meeting both of them later this afternoon in both the bilaterals and the Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meeting. We have been keeping the devolved Administrations aware of what we have been doing, and I certainly undertake to continue to do that.

David Hanson: The Prime Minister has made the right call on the facts before her today, and her judgment in this matter is correct. Will she also look at the transport of materials and assets from other countries, because material will often not go direct from Moscow to London? Will she ensure that our European and NATO partners take the same action if evidence leads to that conclusion?

Theresa May: That is an important point and it has been raised. We will be looking at the movement of materials and indeed, as I indicated in my statement, at any further action we can take on the movement not only of materials, but of people. We will of course be discussing that with our allies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Prime Minister has such widespread support because she has learned the lesson of history that tyrants must be stood up to. May I encourage her to impose a freeze on assets, so that people do not have the opportunity of taking them out of the country in the short term; and to boost the military resources in Estonia, where we already have 800 troops, to show very tangibly that we will support our friends and allies who might also be at risk from Russia?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I said in my statement, we will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they might be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. I was pleased to be able to visit our troops in Estonia last September. We are of course there with other allies, and I was pleased that at the Anglo-French summit in January President Macron committed to a continuing contingent of French troops joining our troops in Estonia. That is an important collective symbol of our determination to protect the west against Russia.

Sarah Jones: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Given the inevitable focus over recent years on ISIS and the terrorism we have seen at home, is the Prime Minister content that across Government, the Home Office, the security services and other agencies we have enough specific Russian expertise as well as enough resource, or do we need to increase that expertise given this event and many others which show that the Russian Government are intent on undermining our democracy?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right that in recent years there has been an appropriate and correct focus on counter-terrorism, but that does not mean we have not been looking at hostile state activity and at counter-espionage measures, because we have. We keep these in balance as we go forward and assess the threats we are facing, and we will continue to do so.

Vicky Ford: Ever since Russian troops first entered Ukraine, friends from many different countries have told me how false news stories emanating from Russian sources have been used aggressively to influence public opinion and undermine legitimate democracies. They use social media platforms and traditional media; hybrid warfare is a key part of this. Will the Prime Minister call for an international strategy to deal with hybrid warfare? Can it be on the EU agenda next week and be discussed at the NATO summit in July?

Theresa May: I have already raised at previous meetings of the European Union Council the issue of the Russian use of disinformation and propaganda and would expect to raise it again. We recognise the importance of the disinformation campaign work being done by the Kremlin; managing it is a long-term priority for the UK, but in doing that we will of course work with our international allies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. If colleagues were willing to imitate the legendary succinctness of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) in terms of the format of questions, we could probably accommodate everybody, but if there are going to be mini-speeches some might lose out.

Gavin Robinson: I listened very carefully on the subject of travel advice and advice for Football Association officials. The Prime Minister will remember the pitched battles in Paris that English supporters faced; will she reappraise the protection and security afforded to them if they travel?

Theresa May: Yes, we will of course look at the security and protection of any UK football fans who are travelling.

David Tredinnick: I too strongly support the Prime Minister’s robust position. Does she recall the enormous efforts made during John Major’s Government to build good relations with Russia? Indeed, John Major went to see President Yeltsin, and I was lucky enough to go with him. Will the Prime Minister stress that our beef is not with the people of Russia,  with whom we share cultural links, but just with the leadership, and if we can persuade Russia to return to the rule of law we can rebuild those relations?

Theresa May: As I said before, our argument is not with the Russian people and we continue to recognise that this is about the actions of the Russian state and Government. As I said earlier in my statement, many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope when that was first developed, but, sadly, because of the way in which President Putin has been dealing with these matters, the picture is very different today.

Gavin Newlands: In welcoming the Prime Minister’s actions and statement, may I point out that one notable ally who has not yet spoken out against Russia’s actions in Salisbury is President Trump? Will she urge him to condemn vociferously Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government’s actions, and to do so without delay?

Theresa May: I spoke to President Trump yesterday and he has spoken out against this incident. We will be continuing to speak with the American Administration because they are among the allies we would encourage to work with us in a collective response to this issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I also commend my right hon. Friend on the package of measures she has taken today against this outrageous and illegal act on British soil. May I ask that all suspicious deaths be thoroughly investigated by the police, and that if the Russian Government are implicated in any of them, she stands by to take further tough measures against that state?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and this question has been raised before. Of course the reinvestigation of any deaths is a matter for the police; it is for them to consider what action to take. At present their focus is clearly on this investigation, but I am sure they will look at that matter in due course.

Kerry McCarthy: The Council of Europe has already been mentioned as one of the platforms on which we engage with Russia, although Russia has been withholding its payments to it for some time now. There is a motion on Magnitsky before the 46 other countries, and there is also an inquiry into the death of Boris Nemtsov. Would it be helpful if the Minister for Europe and the Americas came to our next session in Strasbourg to help spread the word that we need a Magnitsky law across Europe?

Theresa May: I am certainly willing to look at the hon. Lady’s proposal.

Hugo Swire: We have recently seen a marked increase in Russian activity in the Balkans, very often using the Serbs as a proxy to try to dissuade some of the western Balkan states from joining NATO. Will my right hon. Friend urgently commit to discussing with NATO how to make sure those countries can accede to it as quickly as possible?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We are happy to look at the accession of certain of those countries to NATO, and I am pleased that we will be hosting a western Balkans summit here in the UK in July.

Toby Perkins: I endorse the actions that the Prime Minister has taken and the unavoidable conclusion she has come to. Was she as disappointed as I was that shortly after the powerful and excellent statement from Secretary of State Tillerson he lost his job in the Trump Administration? Will she pass on to President Trump the message of how much we supported the words of Tillerson and encourage President Trump to ensure that the person he appoints as his replacement is equally robust about the dangers from Russia?

Theresa May: Who forms part of the American Administration is not a matter for me; it is for the President. However, we are leaving our American colleagues in no doubt about the seriousness of this issue. Mr Tillerson did indeed make robust comments after this incident, and I am sure we will be working with his replacement to ensure that America is one of those allies who stand alongside us.

Paul Masterton: This attack on our soil is part of a long and aggressive strategy by Russia not just to undermine the west, but to divide and rule. With that in mind, does the Prime Minister agree that we need to do more to call out the Putin regime, including by recognising their occupation of Georgia? That is what it is: an occupation.

Theresa May: We of course stand ready to call out the Putin Administration and Russian Government; we do that across a number of fronts and will continue to do so.

Rupa Huq: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and the concern she expressed to me yesterday regarding the surprise substances some of us received in our parliamentary post this week—not on a Salisbury scale, but frightening none the less. Will she commit to those who operate within and outside feeling the full force of the law, and go a bit faster on the long-promised public registers of property, many of which are Russian-owned? This has been Government policy since David Cameron, and if they were in place by now, we would know where the assets are to freeze.

Theresa May: I reiterate the comment that I made at Prime Minister’s questions that these were appalling acts against Muslim Members of this House, and of course a full investigation is taking place. I have discussed the public register of ownership with the Business Secretary and it is the Government’s intention to bring that forward so that we can ensure that we shine a light on the issue.

Alec Shelbrooke: While we have been sitting here, the political journalist Tom Newton Dunn has tweeted:
“Corbyn’s spokesman clarifies he does not believe there is proof yet that Russia is responsible for #Salisbury—and MI5/MI6 may be wrong: ‘There is a history between WMDs and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly’.”
Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the faith that she has in the intelligence services to be absolutely certain about the evidence that she receives? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is not so much about the views of a journalist. The hon. Gentleman is in order to ask for the views of the Prime Minister on the intelligence services, and that he has done. That is perfectly orderly.

Theresa May: I am surprised and shocked by the statement that has been put out by the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] As I was going to say, it is clear from the remarks that have been made by Back Benchers from the Labour party that they will be equally concerned about that remark. They stand four-square behind the Government in the analysis that we have shown and the action that we have taken.

Chris Evans: In 2010, Gareth Williams, a British security employee, was found naked and decomposing in a padlocked holdall. The coroner ruled that it was an unlawful killing, and that a professional contortionist would not have been able to get out of the bag. In the light of the events with Russia, will the Prime Minister now reopen that case to find out whether Mr Williams was indeed another victim of Vladimir Putin?

Theresa May: I recall the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As I said in response to an earlier question, investigations into criminal activity will be a matter for the police, and it is for them to determine whether they reopen the case.

Alberto Costa: On behalf of the people of South Leicestershire, may I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust but measured statement? On Monday, I met members of the senior management of the BBC World Service at BBC Broadcasting House. The Prime Minister is correct to have told the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that broadcasting is a matter for Ofcom, but funding is not. I understand that the BBC World Service is in communication with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Will the Prime Minister assure the House today that if the BBC World Service needs additional funding to combat Russia Today, particularly in the Balkans and the Baltic, she will speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about that?

Theresa May: My understanding is that discussions are indeed taking place on the funding of the World Service, and that we expect a resolution in due course.

Stephen Kinnock: I should like to add my full support to the Prime Minister’s robust response today. As director of the British Council in St Petersburg from 2005 to 2008, I have first-hand experience of the utterly ruthless way in which the Russian state can operate. Does she share my concern that holding the World Cup in Russia this summer could be perceived as a global vindication of Mr Putin’s regime? If so, will she be making representations to FIFA to explore the possibility of postponing the World Cup until 2019 and holding it in a more appropriate host country or countries?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, which is particularly valuable given his experience with the British Council. The holding of sporting events and the choice of venues are matters for the sporting authorities. The sporting authorities here in the United Kingdom will have heard what I have said today about the actions of the Russian state.

Nigel Huddleston: This attack could have been so much worse. What if a group of schoolchildren playing in the park had been the first to approach the victims after they collapsed? Does the Prime Minister share my disgust that the perpetrators of this crime must have known that?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, one other individual, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, was affected as a first responder, but it could have been so different. It is thanks to the prompt action of the emergency services that this matter has been contained in the way that it has, but those who undertook this brazen and despicable act must have known the potential implications.

Stewart McDonald: Facts are chiels that winna ding, which is why there can be no feigning of impotence anywhere on these Benches. What is the Prime Minister’s assessment of the example advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on Monday regarding asking the Spanish Government to halt the use of their ports for refuelling by the Russian fleet?

Theresa May: At least one other member state of the European Union has indeed refused the Russian state the possibility of refuelling its ships. This matter is raised from time to time, and I recognise its significance and the passion with which the hon. Gentleman and his colleague have raised it.

Gareth Johnson: Nobody should be surprised that Russia has denied responsibility for the attacks in Salisbury. It is a country that has denied taking part in the Olympics doping scandal and in the rigging of elections. Worst of all, it has denied any involvement in the killing of Alexander Litvinenko. Given that, will the Prime Minister please assure the House that Russia will be treated according to its actions and not its words?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be clear that the attitude of the Russian state is shown by what it does, not by what it says.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions that she has outlined. She said that there was a need for a new targeted power to detain at the UK border those suspected of hostile state action. Many of us will be surprised that we do not already have that power. Is there a plan to bring forward emergency legislation so that such a power could be put in place quickly?

Theresa May: The power currently exists in relation to those who are suspected of terrorism, but not of hostile state activity. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be looking urgently at the most appropriate legislative vehicle to bring that power forward.

Chris Philp: The Prime Minister was right to point out that this is simply the latest act by a criminal rogue state. We remember the Malaysia Airlines jet that was shot down, the invasion of Crimea and the support for the murderous regime in Syria. I fully support her position, and I am horrified by the statement that has been read out on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman. I should like to add my voice to those who have asked the Prime Minister to look quickly and seriously at financial sanctions for individuals closely associated with the Putin regime, as well as for the wider Russian economy.

Theresa May: We look at all the tools available across the board, but we operate within the rule of law, and there are certain criteria that need to be met if sanctions are to be applied.

Chris Matheson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I look forward to her aggressively chasing down that dirty Russian money. There have now been 15 suspicious deaths, and I should like to ask about the prevalence of these deaths in the UK. Are there more in the UK than in similar western countries? If so, why? Is it because we have more Russians here, or because Russia is deliberately targeting the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: I would just caution the hon. Gentleman when he describes all those deaths as suspicious. I believe that one of the families involved have made it very clear that they do not consider there to have been any suspicion around the death of their loved one. If the police believe that it is right to reopen cases, they will do so. It is up to them to make that operational decision.

Alex Chalk: I thank the Prime Minister for her calibrated, proportionate and robust response. Will she join me in paying tribute to the brave British intelligence agents who serve our country? In the light of the increasingly violent and erratic approach of the Russian state, does she agree that if there needs to be a reassessment of their personal security here in the UK, that should take place without delay?

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming, congratulating and thanking all those who work for our security and intelligence agencies for the valuable work that they do for us on a day-to-day basis. Each of those agencies will consistently ensure that they are considering the safety of their staff. They recognise the important work that those people do and how important it is to ensure that they are safe.

Clive Efford: Russia has consistently behaved in this manner over a long period, but that has not stopped the elite of our major sporting organisations, such as the IOC and the proven-to-be-corrupt FIFA regime under Sepp Blatter, from allocating major sports tournaments to Russia. Does the Prime Minister agree that the elite in our sport need to look at themselves and not isolate themselves from human rights issues and criminal law when they allocate major tournaments?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman will know that the elite in certain sporting organisations have found themselves under scrutiny in a variety of ways   over recent years, but it is important that we all have a care towards human rights issues and other matters when such things are being considered.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I welcome the Prime Minister’s robust and proportionate statement. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesperson seems to have suggested that there is some parallel between Salisbury and Iraq. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, while no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, three people are in hospital because chemical weapons were used in Salisbury? Will she also give us an update on their condition?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about the use of a chemical weapon—a military-grade nerve agent—against people here in the United Kingdom. That is very clear. It is wrong and outrageous that the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman has made those comments.

Chris Williamson: The horrendous incident in Salisbury has placed a huge unforeseen burden on local police. We know that the police service has faced unprecedented cuts, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give an assurance that the additional burden will be met from central resources and that it will not fall to the local police to pick up the bill.

Theresa May: The initial response to the incident was of course taken by Wiltshire police. When the nature of the incident became clear, the force was able to draw on support from neighbouring forces and, crucially, the counter-terrorism capability came into place. Counter-terrorism police have taken on and are running the investigation. This is about not just the resources, but the capabilities that police officers and the counter-terrorism force have brought to bear in this instance.

Robert Courts: Is the Prime Minister able to give any update on the treatment and health of the brave policeman who was harmed after going to help, and will she pay tribute to him?

Theresa May: I am happy to pay tribute to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. As I think I mentioned the other day, I believe he said that he was merely doing his job. That is the attitude that is taken by all our police officers on a daily basis no matter what danger they find themselves in. My understanding is that he remains seriously ill, but he is conscious and has been engaging with people.

Paul Sweeney: The Prime Minister’s reaction to the terrible incident in Salisbury is proportionate, appropriate and robust, but does she agree that we need to go further and set an example in this House? All right hon. and hon. Members should immediately and permanently desist from appearing on any Russian propagandist channels, including RT and Sputnik.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have spoken about the actions that the Government can take, but there are actions that individual Members can also take to send a clear message.

James Cartlidge: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s steadfastness and statesmanship in standing up to this Russian aggression. Does she agree that this attempted murder on our soil by the Russian state will not enrich the lives of a single Russian citizen at home in Russia, and that this is the autocrat’s classic con trick down the years, externalising internal discontent with aggression abroad because the leader in question knows that he cannot and will never deliver the prosperity, freedom and democracy that the Russian people are so long overdue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not one person living in Russia will benefit or see their prosperity or life chances increase as a result of this action. This is about the Russian state; it is not about its care for the Russian people.

Luke Pollard: I condemn Russia for this attack. The Prime Minister will know that a strong Royal Navy is a strong deterrent against Russian aggression, so will she ensure that sufficient new money is provided so that there are no cuts to the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines?

Theresa May: We have of course been providing extra funding to the Royal Navy and have been enhancing its fleet. Last summer, I was pleased to go on the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, which is a fine example not just of our Royal Navy’s capability, but of this Government’s commitment to defence.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and her robust defence of a rules-based international order. Too many people died in the 20th century to establish that order just to throw it away in the 21st century. Will she confirm what discussions we are having with the Republic of Ireland? Given that we share a common travel area—she has rightly referred to the border and the need for security there—what discussions does she plan to have to ensure that the whole border area is secure?

Theresa May: The common travel area and its operation are things that we discuss on a regular basis with the Irish Government. We have recently been looking at enhancing the security arrangements that we have put in place and we will continue to do so.

John Bercow: I thank the Prime Minister and all colleagues who have questioned her this afternoon.

INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s ambitious proposals to build strong, integrated communities, where people—whatever their background—can live, work, learn and socialise together based on shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities. The “Integrated Communities Strategy” Green Paper, published today, sets out a bold programme to deliver that vision.
Britain is a great place to live. We are one of the world’s most successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith societies, and we should take huge pride in that diversity. However, as we have seen just this week with the abhorrent “punish a Muslim” letters, there is a determination among some to try to divide. I express my support for all those who have received these hateful letters, including the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). While there is a lot for us to be proud of, there is also more to do to ensure that a diverse society does not mean a divided society. In too many parts of our country, the truth is that the norm is mistrust, anxiety and prejudice—things that prevent people from taking full advantage of the opportunities that living in Britain offers. We can no longer duck the issue if we are to ensure that this is a country that works for everyone. To that end, we have identified five factors that drive segregation in our communities.
First, too many schools are segregated, even where the local population is very diverse, and unregulated settings outside school can also, on occasion, expose children to harmful views.
Secondly, there is residential segregation. In 2011, 41% of ethnic minorities lived in wards where white British people were a minority—an increase from 25% just 10 years ago. That reduces opportunities for people to mix and form meaningful relationships with those from different backgrounds.
Thirdly, disproportionately high levels of unemployment and economic inactivity reduce social mobility and can increase isolation. Sixty per cent. of women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnicity are inactive in the labour market compared with a quarter of their white peers.
Fourthly, at the last census, as many as 770,000 adults in England could not speak English well or at all. Without a good understanding of our language, it is difficult for anyone to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them, and I know from personal experience just how much of a difference it made for my mother when she learned to speak English more than a decade after moving here from Pakistan.
Fifthly, there is a lack of meaningful mixing between people from different backgrounds. Evidence suggests that black, white and Asian Britons take up only about half the opportunities open to them to mix socially with people of an ethnicity different from their own. All that adds up to a conflict between religious, personal and cultural attitudes, and British values, causing increased tensions within and between communities. Women and girls are often at the greatest disadvantage.
The Green Paper sets out a framework of national priority actions to address the drivers of poor integration and to put forward a localised approach. In doing so, it sets out how we will facilitate recent migrants’ integration into their communities and how we will improve communities’ ability to adapt to migration. Success will depend on strong leadership, at both the national and local level. To ensure that the Government are leading by example, I am asking all Whitehall Departments to review their policies and to identify areas where they could do more to support integration. For example, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will review the “Life in the UK” test to see whether it could be amended to strengthen its focus on the values and principles of the UK. by which we are all expected to live.
The Green Paper includes proposals to ensure that every child receives an education that prepares them for life in modern Britain. That means giving them the opportunity to mix and form lasting relationships with those from different backgrounds and making sure they receive a rounded education that promotes British values across the curriculum. To protect children and young people from being exposed to views that undermine our shared values, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will publish proposals to strengthen the enforcement policy for independent schools that fail to meet the required standard. He will also review whether Ofsted’s powers can be strengthened in relation to unregistered schools. We will stand up against undue pressure or harassment of school leaders who, having consulted, set reasonable policies that promote integration.
On employment, the Green Paper outlines how Jobcentre Plus will trial new approaches to break down the barriers to employment and support people from isolated communities into work. However, the truth is that a person must be able to speak English not only to find  a job and prosper, but to play a full role in society. That is why we are proposing to develop a new strategy  for English language in England and launch a new community-based English language programme.
The Green Paper also takes a robust approach to hate crime—a vile attack not just on individuals but on the tolerant and generous values that underpin British society. The Green Paper proposes strengthening local partnerships so that they can identify and adopt the most effective approaches to tackling hate crime and encourage more people to report it. But it is clearly not enough to stamp out hate. We need to build hope and stronger communities, which the Green Paper aims to do through initiatives such as the integration innovation fund. That fund will allow organisations to bid to test out approaches to bring people together around shared activities and community spaces.
None of these measures dilutes the Government’s commitment to protect people’s legitimate rights to free speech and to practise their religion within the law. Indeed, the Green Paper reaffirms that commitment. But we cannot and will not shy away from challenging cultural practices that are harmful, particularly for women and girls. Recent news about the abuses in Telford highlights just how important the issue is.
We will also expand our Strengthening Faith Institutions programme to help a wider range of faith institutions to tighten up their governance structures, including promoting the participation of women and young people. We will  support training of faith leaders to practise in the British context by ensuring they understand the British legal system, British culture and our shared values. The recent independent review of sharia law also recommended amending marriage legislation to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before or at the same time as the religious marriage ceremony. The Government share the concerns raised in the review and support that principle and recommendation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will explore the legal and practical challenges of limited reform to the law to reflect that.
We recognise that issues play out differently in different places and for different people, so we are going to work with five very different parts of the country: Blackburn with Darwen, Bradford, Peterborough, Walsall, and Waltham Forest, to develop local integration strategies and to learn how we can best address the challenges on the ground. The overall aim is to develop a set of integration measures at a local and a national level, so that we can assess what really works.
It is a sign of a mature, confident society that we can discuss these issues without lazy stereotyping or over-sensitivity. I look forward to a constructive debate with all those in the House and beyond who want to focus on what unites rather than divides us. We should be guided by the evidence and an acknowledgement that we all have a role to play—both new arrivals in making a new life here, and existing communities in supporting them.
As the proud son of immigrants whose parents worked hard to get on and give something back, I want everyone in Britain to enjoy the same opportunities—to celebrate where they come from while playing a full and proper role in British society; to see people from all backgrounds mixing freely and without fear; and to ensure that everyone, regardless of whether they are a new arrival or can trace their ancestry back to the Norman conquest, feels proud to call this country their home. The Green Paper proposes an ambitious programme of action across Government to help achieve just that. I commend it to the House.

Yvonne Fovargue: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his oral statement and for bringing to the House the Government’s long-awaited integration strategy. From the start, I want to echo his comments on the “punish a Muslim” letters. The individuals who sent those have no place in society. We must do much more in the House to speak for the power of diversity and the power of the contribution of people of all backgrounds to enrich all our lives.
In December 2016, we were told that the Secretary of State was studying the report’s findings very closely and that the Government’s strategy would appear in the new year. Fifteen months later, I hope the delay in publishing has given the Secretary of State sufficient time to reflect and produce a robust strategy. I welcome his decision to visit an adult learning centre in Waltham Forest this morning—a Labour council that, despite having seen its budgets slashed, is working hard for its community. The Government have much to learn from the work being done there. Imagine how much these vital  services could achieve across the country if they were properly funded! The money that the Secretary of State has committed today to that authority will go far in supporting its English for speakers of other languages, or ESOL, programme.
Breaking down the barriers that exist between communities is the best tool we have to challenge hostility and mistrust. We welcome the Government’s re-focus on English language provision, but these actions do little to reverse the massive cuts that have been implemented by the Government. According to the House of Commons Library, between 2009-10 and 2015-16, funding for ESOL fell in real terms from £222 million to just £90 million. It is unclear what proportion of the £50 million will be used to reverse those cuts, but it is clear that it will not be enough to undo the damage. We recognise how important it is for people arriving in the UK to be able to speak English, but cuts to the sector have left it in a dangerous state of disrepair. Although the new funding is welcome, we need to go further. We have committed to re-establishing ESOL classes and making them free at the point of use for all those who need them.
In her report, Dame Louise Casey said:
“The problem has not been a lack of knowledge but a failure of collective, consistent and persistent will to do something about it or give it the priority it deserves at both a national and local level”.
It is disappointing, then, that today the Government have announced not a new policy, but rather another consultation for a potential policy—and one that is to be implemented not nationally, but among a small selection of target areas. It seems that that disappointment was shared by Dame Louise. On the “Today” programme this morning, she said:
“it will take more than £50 million over two years and is something the whole country will have to embrace. The differences in the country at the moment are too great and we need something that heals the nation.”
Dame Louise said in her report:
“The work that has been done has often been piecemeal and lacked a clear evidence base or programme of evaluation.”
Again, she was disappointed on that today. On the “Today” programme, she said she had hoped for
“big bold strategies that make seismic change”.
She also mentioned the rough sleeping unit that she headed up under the last Labour Government:
“We ended the need for people to sleep rough on the streets of this country, we drastically reduced antisocial behaviour... I would like to see coming out of their strategy something on that level.”
Also on this point, the Government need to ensure that the work they propose in this Green Paper is supported by evidence and involves a proper system of evaluation. I would welcome it if the Secretary of State could provide details on that today.
The Casey review also refers to the rise in hate crime since the EU referendum—it soared by 41% after the vote. I know the Secretary of State will join me in condemning those who have stoked violence, but I am sure that he also agrees that there needs to be greater respect among Members of this House, because we should be leading by example on this.
On education, mixing with children from other backgrounds and religions throughout school life is indeed one of the best ways of preventing barriers from being erected in the first place. A former No. 10 aide said that instead of simply learning about British values of tolerance, children should be living them. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children mix with all cultures and religions, given that the new Education Secretary recently suggested he was in favour of ditching the 50% cap on religious admissions to new over-subscribed faith schools? Also, will the Housing, Communities and  Local Government Secretary commit to subjecting independent schools to community impact assessments?
I hope that today’s announcement signals a new commitment from the whole of Government, but an integration innovation fund to make better use of shared community spaces such as parks and libraries will do little for many communities in which those facilities have closed because of Government cuts. This strategy should be a blueprint for the type of society we wish our children to grow up in. It should be bold, ambitious and, as Dame Louise has said, “backed with serious funding”. We welcome the broad thrust of the strategy as a welcome, overdue, small first step. Despite our criticism that it lacks some of the ambition we would like—we want the strategy’s approach to be deeper and wider—there are some positive ideas in the statement. The true test will be whether there is rigorous evaluation, and if any successful strategy is given the backing and money to expand into all areas so that extremism—both Islamist and far right—can be consigned to history, and we can go forward with a diverse, not divided, Britain.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for broadly welcoming the strategy. She started by mentioning the work that Dame Louise Casey has done for years on this subject, including through the report that she published. Let me take this opportunity to thank Dame Louise again for what she has done. That valuable report was an important input into the development of the strategy, as was evidence from other sources. From what I have seen from Dame Louise Casey today, she has welcomed the strategy. Of course, there are things that she might have done differently, but she has broadly welcomed it, and I thank her for that.
The hon. Lady went on to mention the English language. Once again, I welcome her support in understanding that this is a major issue. We must do much more to support people who have settled in our country but speak no or little English to learn that language, for all the obvious reasons. She mentioned my visit today to the Queens Road learning centre in Walthamstow. I was very impressed with how it is run and with the people I met who have, within just a year, learnt an incredible amount of English. They talked to me about how that had transformed their lives, and I am very supportive of such activity, which is why I am pleased that a part of our plan is to help more communities to provide that kind of teaching.
The hon. Lady also mentioned funding for English language teaching. Of course funding is important, but this is about more than just that. We have committed today, for the first time, to ensure that this is a national strategy across all Departments, so for example my Department, the Home Office and the Department for Education will work together with one goal of helping people to learn English. We are also making use of community groups, which can often get to those people who need to learn English in a much more practical and sensible way than perhaps under the traditional approach. That is why we are keen to use these five pilot areas that we have named. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy. We will need different approaches to achieve the same objectives, and we should be led by the evidence. I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that everything should be led by evidence.
The hon. Lady also rightly condemned hate crime of all types. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), stood at this Dispatch Box just a couple of days ago to outline the Government’s hate crime strategy and how we will build on that. The hon. Lady speaks for everyone in this House when she says that hate crime of any type is unacceptable. I agree with her that people in this House should set an example, and that applies to all types of hate crime—hate crime against Muslims and anti-Semitic hate crime.
Lastly, the hon. Lady mentioned faith schools and schooling more generally. She will recall that my statement referred to segregation in schools. This is not an issue just for some faith schools; it is equally an issue for non-faith schools and in many parts of the education sector. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has agreed not only to review what can be done, but to work with the pilot areas immediately to determine what strategies can be developed locally to try to reduce segregation. I believe that this is the first time a Government have committed to do that.
My last comment is to welcome the hon. Lady’s recognition that this is a strategy for the whole of Government. This has not been done before under successive Governments. We recognise that almost every Department—some clearly more than others—has a role to play in building a more integrated and cohesive society.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: May I join my right hon. Friend in utterly condemning the “punish a Muslim” letters? Having read the text, I am appalled, and I hope that our Government will ensure that the full force of the law is put behind finding the senders of these letters and ensuring that they are punished. I think that the whole House will join in condemning the appalling way in which certain Members have been specifically targeted.
I welcome the Green Paper and the funding, and my right hon. Friend’s determination to ensure that social integration can be advanced, particularly by enabling people to speak English. I find that it is often the older members of my local Muslim community in Chesham who have not managed to achieve any great fluency in English. Many of them are women, and they are often not aware of their rights and cannot play a full part in society. What does my right hon. Friend propose so that we are able to reach older members of our communities and enable them to get the fluency in English that they should have?

Sajid Javid: First, may I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the hate crime letters that we have all heard about this week? A live police investigation is under way and I reassure her that the full force of the law will be used to find the perpetrators and ensure that they are punished.
My right hon. Friend talked about English language learning, particularly among older members of communities. She is right that that can be harder for someone who has been here for perhaps 40 or 50 years and still does not speak English properly. In trying to  encourage such people to take up English, we wish to expand the process of getting other members of their community—perhaps even those of the same age group—to encourage them into settings that might be familiar and to work with them. That might be a slower process than getting them into a place such as a college to learn English, but if it is a method that works, it is what we will support.

Alison Thewliss: I start by condemning the letters that have been mentioned. The Scottish National party condemns hate crime and extremism of all kinds.
While the SNP welcomes all action to promote integration, this Government really have a cheek, because 15 months on from the Casey report, Refugee Action has dubbed this Green Paper
“all mouth and no trousers”
without new money for ESOL, as its funding has been cut by 60% in England over the past five years. What research have the Government done into austerity’s impact on integration? The Secretary of State mentioned Jobcentre Plus, and I can tell him Jobcentre Plus asked one of my constituents to stop her ESOL class and go into work. It is ludicrous that this is happening.
This Government have pandered to tabloids and stoked up anti-immigration rhetoric for years, so they should apologise for their part in this. After all, this is a Government of “Go Home” vans; of the hostile environment; of impoverishing and making destitute asylum seekers, preventing them from working, which we know would aid integration; of deeming highly skilled migrants a threat to national security under paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules; and of the Brexit shambles, which makes EU nationals feel so unwelcome that they are leaving the country they have made home.
We are working hard in Scotland to counter that narrative, because it really matters. Our New Scots refugee integration strategy seeks integration from day one. It is a two-way process. We would like immigration law to be devolved so that we can do more. We welcome those who have done us the honour of making Scotland their home, and I take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them, because we do not do that enough.
The Scottish Government’s strategy was drawn up in consultation with more than 700 refugees and asylum seekers. Does the Secretary of State intend to consult similarly? We allow asylum seekers in Scotland to learn English for free and encourage community-based learning, as happens in Nan McKay hall in my constituency, where some of those who came through the door for ESOL classes are now members of the board of that organisation. We have a community response through Refuweegee, and the people at Code Your Future want to teach coding skills to new migrants. The Scottish Refugee Council encourages people to take a cup of tea with a refugee. What consultation has the Secretary of State done with the Scottish Government, especially in respect of the life in the UK test? Will he look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation?

Sajid Javid: It is a shame that the hon. Lady took such an unconstructive attitude. This vital issue concerns everyone throughout the country. Of course, the policies  that I have set out today primarily affect England, although some issues, such as the life in the UK test, are UK-wide. Despite the attitude taken by the hon. Lady, we stand ready to work with the Scottish Government to further our joint goal of a more integrated society.

Bob Blackman: I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and the manner in which he has presented it. I join others in condemning the terrible atrocities that Members from across the House have suffered as a result of hate crimes committed against them.
Some 161 languages are spoken in my constituency in our schools alone. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee conducted a brief inquiry into the Casey review, and I suspect that we will return to this subject again.
One problem that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned is that children are often withheld from schooling. Children who are in schools learn English rapidly and become part and parcel of society; children who do not go to school and are withdrawn from education often do not pick up English very quickly, if at all. That means that they are not able to play their full part in society. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what he will do to make sure that young children who are withdrawn from education are properly educated and mix with other children, so that they get the opportunity to integrate into society?

Sajid Javid: I commend my hon. Friend on his remarks. I note that he represents what is probably one of the most diverse constituencies in the country, and it is all the richer and culturally stronger for that. He raised the particular issue of English and schooling. He is quite right—the evidence shows this—that some people abuse the freedoms that we give to schooling by taking their children out of the education system altogether and sending them to unregistered schools, which raises all sorts of issues, not least about the safeguarding of those children. We have committed in the Green Paper to a review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education of the guidelines on home schooling and the requirements to have all schools registered, and he will also look at Ofsted’s powers.

Naseem Shah: I welcome the Secretary of State’s proposals, particularly in the context of Bradford, where we met previously. Bradford is doing some great work on integration, whether through the Science and Media Museum’s gaming festival, the literature festival or, indeed, Bradford’s curry festival. The truth is, though, that this Government’s cuts of more than £130 million to ESOL provision have decimated the local infrastructure available to deliver the plans that he is talking about. What assurances can he give that my city will not be left with a shoestring budget with which to deliver this vision of his?

Sajid Javid: I assure the hon. Lady that we share the same goals. I know that she cares deeply about this, as we have spoken about these kinds of issues before. As she knows, Bradford is one of our pilot areas, and we have already started work there. It does not have to wait; this has already started. Bradford will have access to new funding for that work, and we want to work with people there to innovate. We want to listen to their  ideas, because they are the people on the ground who are dealing with these issues day in, day out. The hon. Lady is right to refer to resources, which are of course important, but practice and how things are done are equally important, and we want to learn from that, too.

Desmond Swayne: On sharia councils, how do we protect people who are ignorant of their rights or subject to peer pressure in closed communities?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend asks a good question. Once he gets a chance to read the Green Paper more closely, he will see that we have set out a programme of how we want to make sure that more people, including imams in mosques, make people aware of their rights. If we have to take direct action to prohibit something—I gave the example of a change in marriage law, and in that case we would need to make sure that women in particular were not being abused and taken advantage of—we will not hesitate to do so.

Karen Buck: There is much in the direction of the proposals to support. The Secretary of State is right to refer to the central importance of women to the development of the strategy. I have seen some superb examples of best practice locally, including work with supplementary schools and with parents through Sure Start centres, as well as other forms of outreach, including the kind of peer-to-peer approach to which the Secretary of State referred. He is, however, completely wrong to say that all this is about more than money. Local authorities need the capacity to sort out such outreach work and to ensure that, whether it is done through community groups or the local councils themselves, it is able to happen. When will he make sure that councils have the resources that they need to turn what is a consensual vision on integration into practical reality?

Sajid Javid: To be clear to the hon. Lady, I am not saying that money is unimportant. Proper funding is of course essential but, equally, using that funding appropriately and in the most efficient way is just as important. She refers to examples from throughout the country. Where councils and community groups have done good work already, they should continue to do that work and we should all learn from that.

Antoinette Sandbach: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. I also wish to highlight the importance of women, especially because they, too, educate their children. What work has my right hon. Friend done to look into how he can reach women in a healthcare setting so that, as he outlined in his statement, the messages cut across Government Departments?

Sajid Javid: I said earlier that this is a cross-Government strategy, and that includes work with the Department of Health and Social Care. In putting together the strategy, we have looked at ways—through local councils or community groups, for example—to make sure that people, and particularly women, in some of these communities are aware of their health rights and what is available. One example is that as the Department for Work and Pensions rolls out universal credit, more and more people come into contact with the system and register for the first time, and we are able to look into ways to  use that information to ensure that we can help more people, especially those to whom other services can perhaps be offered, to ensure that they get those offers.

Graham Jones: Back in 2001 we had the race riots, followed by the council report, and we have heard all this before from different Governments, including the current one. How can we be guaranteed that the strategy will actually make a difference? When will the Government address the fact that, for legitimate and sensible reasons, people chose to live segregated lives? What are the Government going to do to try to make them integrate rather than choose segregation?

Sajid Javid: We should not be allowing people to choose to live segregated lives; that is not something that will help them, especially in the long term. It is not good for them and it is not good for the rest of society, and that is really at the heart of the strategy. We cannot force people to integrate—of course not—but the Government can do a lot, working with local government, community groups and others, to encourage people to integrate. The hon. Gentleman is right that Governments have tried this in the past, and they have had some success, but I believe that this is the boldest, most far-reaching strategy that has been presented by any Government.

Andrew Selous: I unreservedly condemn the hateful letters sent to Muslim MPs, including the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) in my county.
In South West Bedfordshire, we have some wonderful examples of the integration of the Traveller community, particularly where they live among settled residents, with the children attending school and the parents getting into work. I remind both my colleagues on the Front Bench—the Secretaries of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and for Education—that the race disparity audit showed that the Traveller community in this country has the worst outcomes. I say gently to them both that our planning policy does not help in that respect, providing as it does unnecessary separation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his welcome proposal will include the Traveller community to make sure that they are properly integrated for the benefit of everyone?

Sajid Javid: I can assure my hon. Friend that when we talk about integration it is about all communities, not one or two, and including, of course, the Traveller community. He is right to point to the race disparity audit, an important piece of work that showed these kind of disparities, especially in education standards for children from the Traveller community, which are not where anyone would want them to be. We are taking action through the race disparity audit work, and my hon. Friend may be aware that we will shortly publish a consultation on planning issues regarding the Traveller community.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Secretary of State for his condemnation of the literature that I, colleagues and other members of the Muslim community have received. I also welcome  the tone of his statement: in the past, certain kinds of proposals were reflected in a way that stigmatised certain communities, particularly the British Muslim community. Does he agree that fundamental to promoting integration is providing security and protection to minority communities so that they have the confidence to live together with others? In many parts of the country, especially where there are small numbers, and given the rising level of hate crime, people still do not have that confidence. I welcome the cross-Government strategy to make sure that protection against discrimination will get a high priority as part of the programme alongside the other measures.

Sajid Javid: I again condemn the hate crime letters that have been sent to so many people, including the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. As I have said, that is unacceptable in every way, and I assure her that the authorities are doing everything they can to find the perpetrators and punish them for what they have done.
The hon. Lady is correct in her point about giving people protection and confidence. I have seen examples of that throughout my life but especially in my research in preparing the Green Paper. In fact, the visit I made today to Waltham Forest showed me that, and it was great to hear the stories of the women I met about how they have built up confidence to meet others, to learn English and how that has transformed their lives.

Julia Lopez: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Louise Casey and Amanda Spielman, who have taken on difficult integration issues with real guts. My right hon. Friend will be aware of my political background in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and my serious concerns—shared by children’s services officers—about the integration and oversight of a portion of children who are home educated. While I appreciate the work and dedication of the genuine home-educating community and their right to make that choice, will he consider implementing a ban on the home education of children in households that contain a member who has been convicted of any terrorist-related or hate crime offence?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that I know she did to promote integration and community cohesion as a councillor in Tower Hamlets. She raises the important issue of people abusing the valuable right to choose home education for their children, and that is why, under the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has set out, we will review the guidelines for home education and particularly look at those instances—there is evidence of them already—in which people claim to be home educating their children but are in fact sending them to unregistered, unregulated schools, which is clearly a bad outcome for those children.

Judith Cummins: I broadly welcome the strategy and the opportunities it provides to Bradford to become a more cohesive place for all. I urge the Government to make sure that their aims and ambitions are matched by sufficient funding to make them a reality. I also ask the Secretary of State to realise that the root cause of many of these problems is a lack of opportunity. There are too few good jobs, low levels of educational attainment and, ultimately, too many  people living in poverty. If we truly want more integrated communities, we have to deal with those fundamental issues.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of opportunities and how having a more integrated society will help with that, particularly learning English, but it is about a lot more than that and other skills are required as well. It is good that we have a strong economy with more people—including more women—employed than ever before. That is a prerequisite, but of course there is a lot more to do, and I hope she agrees that the strategy will help.

Kevin Foster: I join colleagues in condemning the letters that have been received by other hon. Members. An attack on one MP for doing their job is an attack on every single one of us and our democracy.
During my time in Coventry, I saw at first hand what faith communities could do to bring people together, and I spoke at temples about my faith. What role does my right hon. Friend see faith communities, especially groups such as the Church of England, playing in delivering this strategy?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend gives me an opportunity to thank and congratulate so many faith communities of every faith that do so much to bring people together. I have seen some excellent examples, whether in schools or through mosques, churches and temples. I hope that those faith communities that are already doing good work and have good practice will bid for some of the funds under the strategy, especially the innovation fund, and benefit themselves as well as allowing others to see what they can do.

Chuka Umunna: I endorse all the comments that have been made about the appalling letters. I also welcome the publication of this strategy, not least because it incorporates many of the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on social integration of which my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) are members. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State acknowledges that integration is a two-way street and does not fall into the trap of conflating integration with counter-terror, which has been deeply unhelpful in the past.
It is so important that we emphasise that the three-quarters of a million people he refers to who are not fully proficient in English want to learn English. The fact that they do not know English well is not because they do not want to. Just like the Secretary of State’s mother, they want to learn English. Much of our discourse across the House today has looked at divisions along racial, immigration and religious lines, but the divisions go beyond that. We have major divisions between the different generations and, most importantly, we cannot forget the big divisions between socio-economic classes in our country. I hope that in the implementation of the strategy he will take that on board and look at integration holistically, bringing in all the characteristics that sometimes divide us from each other, but on the whole, I think this is a very positive move by the Government.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments and for the work that he has done as the chair of the APPG on integration. When the report he referred to was published I read it carefully, and it has helped me and my team to develop the strategy today, so I welcome the work that he has done and continues to do on this important issue. He is right to emphasise that it is a two-way street—I agree and it is in the strategy. This is all about community integration and building cohesion, not about extremism, and he is right to emphasise that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about people wanting to learn English. Of course, a small minority will not see the advantage of doing so, but it is our job to make sure they realise how it can really help them, and so we have a role to play there. I saw a fantastic example in Waltham Forest this morning, where all the women I met were so eager to learn and to show off how well they could speak English after only a year or so. That was good to see.
The hon. Gentleman was also right on his final point about breaking down divisions and taking what he rightly described as a holistic approach, rather than a narrow one, and I very much agree with him on that.

Vicky Ford: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, I remember the importance of voluntary societies’ work in helping to reach out across communities. During the Afghanistan war, many brave local people helped to support the British Army, acting as translators, and some needed to be evacuated as they were at risk themselves. Three families came to Chelmsford. The fathers spoke English, but the three women did not. The local women in Chelmsford reached out and started a project called English for Women, which now meets three mornings a week. Many dozens of families and women help, as do lots of retired teachers. It is a cross-communities and cross-faiths project and a fantastic example. Would my right hon. Friend consider visiting it, and helping to twin such organisations with other volunteer organisations across the country?

Sajid Javid: I will absolutely consider visiting Chelmsford and learning for myself about English for Women. It sounds as if the project has done fantastic work, and those lessons can be learnt by others. I encourage the group to make an application to our new innovation fund, as it sounds as if it could very much do with that help.

Jamie Stone: Hon. Members would be forgiven for wondering what on earth the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would have to say about this matter. Nevertheless, over the years a great number of Poles have come to live and work in my constituency and the Scottish highlands, making a very important contribution to our local economy. We are extremely grateful and they have integrated extremely well. The Department for Education has played a hugely important role in achieving this, particularly with teaching English, but I want to mention the police force. Police Scotland has worked extremely hard to build up the confidence of the Polish community, which is very important to highly effective policing. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial that local police forces in other parts of the  UK have the confidence of ethnic groups, that they build on that confidence, and that action should be taken—encouraged by Her Majesty’s Government—when there could be improvement in building up that confidence?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of ensuring that the local police force, wherever that might be, is seen as very much a part of the local community. After all, we police by consent in this country. That is a valuable principle that means ensuring that all communities feel that the police are there for them. I have discussed this subject with the Home Secretary, who equally takes this to be an important matter. It is one of those issues that we should continue always to look at in order to ensure that we are doing the best thing possible.

Fiona Onasanya: I echo the sentiments and statements made by my hon. Friend  the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna). Will the Secretary of State tell me what equality impact assessment has been made on funding for the five pilot areas? One of those areas is my constituency of Peterborough. I note that the Secretary of State has said that he does not want further division, so I wish to ensure that funding is available.

Sajid Javid: It sounds like the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that Peterborough is one of the pilot areas, which is good to hear. We started work with Peterborough a while back and it is very keen to work with the Department. We have been working with Peterborough on ideas and it is clear that each initiative that it puts in place will have to be properly funded, and we look forward to working together on that basis.

Stella Creasy: I welcome the money being given to my borough, the Borough of Waltham Forest. Had the Secretary of State had the courtesy of giving me more than an hour’s notice this morning, I would have happily joined him on his visit to my constituency to meet the women and, indeed, men of Walthamstow, where we have a strong track record of community engagement. I am sure that our community would have told him that we reject the dog-whistle politics that sees integration as a one-way street, and that, as a community that has received the “punish a Muslim” letters, we have stood together to say that this is not in our name. But we would also have told him that the challenge to integration in our borough is not just about being able to speak the same language; it is also about having the time to put down roots and get to know each other—something that spiralling rents and house prices put at risk. Will he commit to tracking what impact churn and housing tenure have on integration, and will he join us all in looking at how we can have longer and more secure tenancies to give people the opportunity to know that good neighbours can become good friends?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. First, let me apologise. It is completely unacceptable and wrong if she only got one hour’s notice of my visit this morning. I was hoping to see her there, but I now know why that was not possible. I assure her that I was  very impressed by what I saw at the Queens Road Learning Centre, where I met the council leaders responsible for the programme. I would like to see more of that activity across the country, not just in Waltham Forest and the pilot areas. She is right about helping people to put down roots and learn from other members of their community. As an example, as well as the ESOL classes I saw at the Queens Road Learning Centre, there was a group called “community chat”, which is designed to help people not just to learn English, but to make friends and make them more comfortable in their local community.

John Grogan: As an MP for Bradford, I enthusiastically welcome this statement. I invite the Secretary of State to Keighley, which is the jewel in the crown of Bradford, to view progress at a later date. A day’s notice will be fine. Does he agree that it is particularly important that parents in Keighley and Bradford can speak English so that they can guide their children at school, and in their choice of friends, careers and so on? Does he also agree that is important that churches and mosques that quite rightly promote the value of family life get behind this promotion of English teaching?

Rosie Winterton: I call Anna Soubry.

Anna Soubry: rose—

Sajid Javid: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Oh, I am sorry. I meant to call the Secretary of State.

Sajid Javid: I thought you were calling me Anna Soubry there, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of mosques, churches, temples and other faith institutions, and the role that they can play not just in serving their faith communities, but in building cohesion. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, I have seen many examples of that. They have an important role to play when it comes to learning English, particularly in encouraging those who might otherwise be reluctant.

Rosie Winterton: I call Anna Soubry.

Anna Soubry: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; my apologies to the Secretary of State.
I have just heard that Round Hill Primary School has issued a letter to all its parents because some of its Muslim families have received these horrible and hateful letters. I know that the Secretary of State will join me in expressing his complete condemnation of that. Does he also agree that although that is hate, a lot of this stems from the twin problems of ignorance and blind prejudice, and that we should all—whatever community our lives touch—do everything that we can to get rid of that ignorance and prejudice that, in its extreme form, ends up with people sending horrible, hateful, very seriously criminal and offensive letters?

Sajid Javid: I join my right hon. Friend in condemning whoever may have sent those letters to the parents at the primary school in her constituency, and I extend my support to those parents. What she has outlined really goes to the heart of this strategy, which aims for everyone to recognise that when we reduce segregation and build a better integrated society, we build more trust between   people, help them to get on better and help them to put aside any prejudices that they might have had. That is why it is so important that we see this strategy through.

Diana R. Johnson: Restoring the ESOL funding that has been cut since 2010 would be a really big way of improving integration. I was really pleased to see the Secretary of State for Education on the Treasury Bench during the statement, because I have a question about home education. Will the Secretary of State say a little bit more about the approach that he thinks is likely to be adopted? The last time that Parliament discussed home education and regulation, his party took a very firm view that they did not want any regulation at all. It is interesting to note that the Government Front Bench may have moved from that position, and I would be interested to know a little bit more about that.

Sajid Javid: The first thing to recognise is that home education is a valuable and important right, and that will not change. There are many examples of excellent home education, and we welcome those. But we have also, sadly, seen examples—some have been reported recently—where home education has led to a bad outcome for those children, and has not helped them or wider society. There will be work across Government, led by the Education Secretary, who will review the guidelines on home education and ensure that all children being home educated are properly registered. At this point, there is no register of who is being educated at home. We want to ensure that the rights that are very valuable to home education are not abused and that they are protected.

Mike Kane: I agree with the Secretary of State on the role of faith groups in the pursuit of integration. Will he join me in congratulating the Well Project in my constituency, which is underpinned by the Caritas organisation in helping refugees and asylum seekers to integrate through the provision of English as an additional language and through women’s and girls’ leadership? I have to say on a practical level, though, that since the Government privatised the refugee and asylum resettlement project, services have gone backwards. There is a lack of spatial planning, local authorities are being cut out of the equation, and there is no integration with the rest of civil society. We are going to have to work 10 times as hard to catch up with the model we used to have.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of resettlement. He might be interested to know that one of the policies that we will be reviewing through the Green Paper is about providing the support that is given to people who rightly and legitimately settle in this country on a long-term basis, because we have tended to have an approach, under successive Governments, where once people have their leave to remain, they  are left on their own. It is very important to have  an approach where they are constantly provided with   information and helped along with the process—perhaps a process that eventually leads to citizenship. I am pleased that the Home Secretary will be reviewing that.

Kate Hollern: I congratulate this House on its total cross-party condemnation of the vile messages that have gone to some of our colleagues. There is no place in this country for such prejudice and hate.
Broadly, I welcome this national strategy. I am extremely pleased that Blackburn, with Darwen, is going to be a pilot area. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, we have a number of fantastic examples of where the communities have integrated, and we are constantly working towards that. I have spent my whole political life working on cohesion and integration for Blackburn because that adds value to the town and to the people, and makes it a better place in which to live and work. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the resources will be used, because in tackling integration we also need to tackle social and economic issues? I plead with him to come to Blackburn and share some of the experiences of our communities.

Sajid Javid: Let me take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady for all the work she has been doing for Blackburn, and long before she became a Member of this House, as the former leader on community cohesion and integration. That work is well known to my Department and Ministers, but also among wider communities that have looked at the experience of Blackburn. She has set a real example and I thank her for that. This is one of the reasons Blackburn is a pilot area. We think that it has been especially innovative in this regard and can do more. We want to work with it but we also want others to learn from it.
The hon. Lady mentioned resources for social and economic issues. The Green Paper talks about resources specifically for integration. However, that will help to leverage in other funding that is available for skills, perhaps, through the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Education and others. That is an important way to look at the resources that will be available.

Thangam Debbonaire: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, I welcome the Government’s integration strategy, as we recommended one in our inquiry last year. I will send the Secretary of State a copy of the report of that inquiry, which looks at refugees who so desperately want to work and contribute to the economy of our country—the country that has granted them asylum. Will he consider meeting me to discuss how some of the more granular points in the inquiry’s findings relate to his strategy?

Sajid Javid: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Rosie Winterton: A perfect ending.

SUPERVISED DRUG CONSUMPTION FACILITIES

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alison Thewliss: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about supervised drug consumption facilities; to make it lawful to take controlled substances within such facilities in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
On Monday, one of my constituents mentioned to me that Glasgow already has drug consumption facilities: they are behind the bushes near his flat and in his close when it rains. Right now, they are also in bin shelters, on filthy waste ground, and in lonely back lanes. They are in public toilets and in stolen spaces where intravenous drug users can grasp the tiniest modicum of dignity and privacy for as long as it takes to prepare and inject their fix. Often they are alone, and, far too regularly, drug users will die as a result. As a society, we can and must do much better than that.
There is a real and persistent issue in Glasgow. In 2016, 2,593 opioid-related deaths were registered in England and Wales. In that same year, 867 were registered in Scotland, and of those, 257 were in the city of Glasgow. We have an ageing population of people with long-term problem drug use. They are increasingly vulnerable and require particular interventions to reduce harm and encourage them to engage, and remain engaged, in health services. The largest cohort of drug users in Scotland are currently aged 35 to 44. This ageing population—people who have survived since starting to take drugs in the 1980s and 1990s—are in deteriorating health. Due to their sustained opiate use, they are assessed as having a physiological age 15 years greater than their actual age. They have complex co-morbidities, with above population-level instances of conditions including COPD—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—and asthma, hepatitis C, liver disease, epilepsy, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, skin infections and cellulitis, depression, and psychosis. This population are vulnerable to overdose and to emergency hospital admission.
The Scottish Drugs Forum has carried out research interviews with a large group of older people with a drug problem. This group feel very strongly that they have been left behind—that they are seen as a waste of space. This House needs to recognise that abstinence-based programmes will not necessarily work for everyone, and that harm reduction and support will be better and more worthwhile interventions for a group of people who have not managed to eliminate drug use in the preceding decades. Evidence shows that long-term engagement in treatment is a positive protective factor. The people in Glasgow who would use this facility are not in treatment. The facility would get them through the door and would provide a range of other social and medical support to help them to stabilise their lives.
The report, “Reducing Opioid-Related Deaths in the UK”, published in December 2016 by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recommends that
“consideration be given—by the governments of each UK country and by local commissioners of drug treatment services—to the potential to reduce”
drug-related deaths
“and other harms through the provision of medically-supervised drug consumption clinics in localities with a high concentration of injecting drug use.”
The report cites evidence demonstrating that such facilities reduce injecting risk behaviours and overdose fatalities. Furthermore, it says:
“They have been estimated to save more money than they cost, due to the reductions in deaths and HIV infections that they produce…Such facilities have not been found to increase injecting, drug use or local crime rates. In addition to preventing overdose deaths, they can provide other benefits, such as reductions in blood-borne viruses, improved access to primary care and more intensive forms of drug treatment. No deaths from overdose have ever occurred in such facilities”.
Glasgow has a proposal—a well-worked-through business case produced by Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, which is supported by the Scottish Government. Drugs law remains reserved to Westminster, and Scottish Ministers have requested permission from the Home Office to allow for the proposal to go ahead. This has not yet been granted. This proposal has the real potential to reduce drug-related deaths, and ongoing harm. It is for an integrated service, as also recommended by the ACMD—not just a “shooting gallery”, as some have suggested. It will allow for engagement with a population who at the moment are not being assisted very well at all. There will be medically trained staff who can supervise and administer life-saving naloxone should it be required.
Some may say that this is an unnecessary expense. I say to Ministers on the Front Bench that it will certainly cost them nothing. For Glasgow, there is a significant cost in not doing this. There is a cost in treating the latest HIV outbreak and in treating hep C and other conditions. There is a cost in emergency hospital admissions and ambulance call-outs and in police time dealing with complaints. There is a significant cost in cleaning up discarded needles, with residents being charged by their factor for a problem not of their making and the council picking up the tab for public spaces. A housing association told me how it is regularly paying to clear up areas of hundreds of discarded syringes. A constituent tweeted me today to say that there are syringes on her doorstep. There is an ongoing public health risk to residents, who at any time could be pricked by a contaminated needle, and of course, there is the intangible cost in human lives. We should consider all those costs that we are currently paying in a situation that helps  no one.
Heroin-assisted treatment has been mentioned as an alternative to a supervised drug consumption room, and I would like to touch on some of the limitations of that. The Glasgow proposal includes provision for heroin-assisted treatment, but I would like to stress that while it can be a treatment for those for whom many other interventions have failed, it is not suitable for everyone.
There are also capacity and cost issues. Glasgow city centre is thought to have a population in the region of 500 injecting drug users. The Glasgow city health and social care partnership believes that it would only have capacity for 40 to 60 individuals for heroin-assisted treatment, and only when the service was running to full capacity, which will not happen for some time. I understand that the service also requires two separate licences to operate: a premises licence, which is in  the gift of the Home Office, and a prescriber’s licence,  dependent on the premises licence, for individual doctors directly linked to the site. It is not a simple process, but it has been developed very much alongside the proposal for a supervised drug consumption facility.
To operate a supervised drug consumption facility requires the consent of the Home Office. Those operating, working in and using the facility require protection in law, hence my Bill seeks to exempt staff and those using drugs within the facility from prosecution and remove liability for prosecution from the operators of the facility—in this case, the Glasgow city health and social care partnership.
The supporters of the Bill come from a range of parties: Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and even the Conservatives. A letter that I wrote to the Home Secretary earlier this year, ahead of the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), garnered similar cross-party support from MPs right across Scotland. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who said in giving his support that
“we should reach out to help those in the grip of drug abuse and do what can be done to help them escape the vile grip of the gangster pushers and dealers.”
This facility is very much a step in that direction.
In my 11 years as an elected member in Glasgow, the issue of drug taking has been a constant. I have seen various police initiatives shunt people around, from bin shelter to close to waste ground. I have seen the council clear up the mess at significant cost and significant risk to its workers. I have seen residents at their wit’s end, worried about what they will open the door to in the morning, with blood, excrement and used syringes on their doorsteps daily. I have seen vulnerable and desperate women and men injecting into their groin in hidden but still public places; they have nowhere else to go. I have listened to the heartbroken families who have lost loved ones. If it was their choice, they would not have their loved one die alone in a filthy back lane. They would want a medically supervised facility where treatment could be given and help could be sought.
The status quo serves none of these people well. I cannot accept that this is the best we can do. It is unacceptable. We must try something different. I accept that it may not work, but we must at least try. Today is International Ask a Question Day, and my question of the UK Government is this: Glasgow has a plan that could reduce drug-related nuisance to residents, reduce harm to drug users and save lives, so will the UK Government let Glasgow get on with the job? I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Crispin Blunt, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Joanna Cherry, Ronnie Cowan, Christine Jardine, Stephen Kerr, Stuart C. McDonald, Ian Murray, Liz Saville Roberts, Mr Paul Sweeney and Dr Philippa Whitford present the Bill.
Alison Thewliss accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 184).

POINT OF ORDER

Tommy Sheppard: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on what parliamentary procedure might be available to me to get a reply from the Home Office on matters relating to my constituents.
Four months ago to the day, I wrote to the then Minister of State at the Home Office asking whether he would review the resources available to the Members’ support line at UK Visas and Immigration because my staff were unable to get basic information. Four months later, I have received no reply, despite several reminders. The problem remains, and I feel that this lack of support from UKVI is compromising my ability as an elected Member to represent my constituents who are in grave circumstances. I seek your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to what can be done to make the Home Department respond to a Member.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. It is obviously unsatisfactory that he has had to wait for such a long time to receive a response, but I am sure his concern has been heard on the Treasury Bench and will be conveyed to the Home Office.

Greg Hands: indicated assent.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you.
Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has obviously made his dissatisfaction clear, and it is now on the record.

European Affairs

[Day 1]

Rosie Winterton: We now come to the general debate on European affairs. The theme of today’s debate is international trade.

Greg Hands: I beg to move,
That this House has considered European Affairs.
I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, which is perhaps a return to the tradition of a pre-European Council debate in the House of Commons. I used to take part in those twice-yearly debates. When I checked my last contribution, which was in June 2008, I was reminded that I, like so many other Conservative Members, called for a new approach in Europe in the immediate aftermath of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty. The purpose of today’s debate, however, is not to dwell on missed opportunities in the past, or to reflect on what might have been had the EU reformed itself; we are here to look to the future, and the Department for International Trade is at the very centre of that bright future.
Before I turn to the future of our trade with Europe and the negotiations under way, it is important to take stock of what we have achieved so far. The joint report issued in December sets out a financial settlement that honours commitments we undertook as EU members, just as we said we would. It agrees to avoid a hard border in Ireland, while respecting the UK’s integrity, which was and is one of the Government’s priorities for these negotiations. Very importantly, it safeguards the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK nationals living abroad, which the Prime Minister has always said was her first priority. Some 17% of my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham are nationals of other EU countries; indeed, my wife is an EU national. I have put in a lot of time and effort in outreach to them, and I can report to the House that the December agreement landed very well among EU nationals there. Ireland, the budget and citizens’ rights—these are strong foundations for the ongoing negotiations, and we should all welcome the progress that has been made on them.

Emma Reynolds: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. Will he acknowledge that there are still very serious concerns about what needs to happen to preserve an invisible border on the island of Ireland—one that does not have any physical infrastructure—and that there is seemingly a misunderstanding in some parts about what is actually meant by the fall-back option of full alignment?

Greg Hands: We have been absolutely clear that we will of course abide by the December agreement in full. Let me remind the hon. Lady that the three priorities we laid out include a strong commitment to avoid a hard border, but also to preserve the integrity of the UK market—I remind her that having access to the UK market is very important for the people of Northern Ireland. No UK Prime Minister could accept a new border down the Irish sea.
We are also making strong progress on our trading relationships outside the EU, which is my primary responsibility as Minister for Trade Policy.

Kenneth Clarke: To follow on from that point, my right hon. Friend has repeated two points from December, and at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister repeated her full commitment to the December agreement on Ireland. When he says there will be no hard border, I assume that means there will be no physical infrastructure. I of course recognise that we will not have a border down the Irish sea, but does he accept that, if there is no other way of achieving it, we are going to have the full regulatory convergence to which the Government signed up in the December agreement?

Greg Hands: I reiterate that what the Prime Minister said at Mansion House and at Prime Minister’s questions this week still stands. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the papers published last summer by the Department for Exiting the European Union on how a proper border between the two parts of Ireland can be effectuated through the two possible types of customs agreements between the UK and the European Union.

Karin Smyth: I asked the Prime Minister during her statement, and I have written to her, about paragraph 47 of the December agreement, which mentions the mapping exercise on north-south co-operation. Will the Government commit to publishing that mapping exercise?

Greg Hands: The Government are undertaking analyses of so many different factors involved in this particular arrangement and question. We have always made clear our commitment to ensuring that the House is properly apprised of all the relevant facts when it comes to examine the actual withdrawal agreement in due course.
As we prepare the ground at the Department for International Trade, its Ministers have made more than 100 overseas visits in the past year and a half. We have set up 14 trade working groups, covering 21 countries with a substantial market size. None of that would have been possible without the excellent work of our Department for International Trade staff, both at home and in post in 108 countries around the world. I put on the record my thanks for their hard work, professionalism and invaluable expertise.

Chuka Umunna: The Minister is right to pay tribute to his Department’s staff. Has he noted the comments of the Department’s recent former permanent secretary to the effect that, if we are to leave the European Union, non-EU trade will not make up for the loss of trade that we currently enjoy with the EU? Secondly, the Secretary of State was part of a campaign that promised that we would start negotiating new trade agreements with other non-EU countries as soon as we voted to leave. How many of those new trade agreements are being negotiated right now?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this is not an either/or situation: it is not a choice between having trade with the European Union or with the rest of the world. The Government’s objectives are clear, namely, to secure a deep and comprehensive partnership with the European Union while still being  able—crucially, outside of the customs union—to pursue an independent trade policy and to secure those agreements with the rest of the world.
On what was said during the campaign, the Department for International Trade has the capability in place and we have built up the Department. I have mentioned the 14 trade working groups. We are clearly not able to carry out a trade negotiation while we are still members of the European Union, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be demanding that we have those negotiations while at the same time saying that we should stay in the EU, which would prevent us from having the negotiations in the first place.

Vicky Ford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the incredible depth and complexity of the UK’s trade with Europe, there is no off-the-shelf solution available from any other trade relationship? Does he also agree that, if we are to have as frictionless trade as possible, there clearly needs to be some form of agreement for what will happen at our customs, such as a partnership or another type of agreement?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. There is no off-the-shelf agreement that would be suitable in this case. We are clear that we are seeking a bespoke arrangement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Neither something like the comprehensive economic and trade agreement nor something like the European economic area would be suitable. On co-operation, we are clear that we seek a good agreement with the European Union that creates as frictionless trade as possible across all our borders, not just the internal border on the island of Ireland.

Desmond Swayne: May I take the Minister back to the former permanent secretary? When Mr Donnelly was interviewed on the “Today” programme that morning, so keen were the presenters to get his soundbite about the packet of crisps that they gave no analysis whatsoever of his figures, which were about 10% awry from those issued by the national statistics office. Has the Department done any digging into where his figures came from?

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend tempts me down a path which I think I ought to resist. I am not exactly sure what figures the former permanent secretary used, but the figures are clear: European Union trade is extremely important to this country, but it is none the less a declining part of our overall trade, down from 56% in 2006 to just 43% today.

Anna Soubry: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I am going to make a bit of progress.
We are not working purely on non-EU trade. A common misconception is that the DIT is a purely Brexit Department. Our ongoing work of encouraging investment and exports is equally important, and that applies just as much to trade with Europe as it does to trade outside it. DIT has over 300 staff across continental Europe. I myself have made 16 European visits to 10 countries while in this position, as have all our ministerial team, including the Secretary of State. We have brilliant teams in commercial centres right the way across Europe.

Anna Soubry: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is very good, kind and generous of him. May we just return to the comments made by Sir Martin Donnelly, because I do not think the record will be accurate? We have heard mention of a bag of crisps. What he said was that, based on his experience of 15 years and beyond in the specific area of trade, our country was in effect embarking on a course that was the equivalent of swapping a three-course meal for a bag of crisps. Has my right hon. Friend seen the Government’s own analysis of the various options available to us that show that, even if we get a trade deal with every single country with which we do not have one by virtue of our membership of the European Union, which is about 50, we will still not be as prosperous as we are now by virtue of our membership of the European Union?

Greg Hands: I thank my right hon. Friend for her lengthy intervention. What I would say is that there is no such analysis of the kind she describes. What I am clear on is that it is our objective to maintain frictionless trade with the European Union as we go forward. It is our objective to conduct an independent trade policy and to seek, when the time is right, trade agreements with those partners. It is also our objective to seek the continuity in existing EU trade agreements for the UK, which I note the Labour party voted against on Second Reading of the Trade Bill. Labour is actually opposed to us seeking the continuity of existing trade agreements.

Antoinette Sandbach: Going back to the analysis published by the Government and the risk presented by non-tariff barriers, it was clear in that analysis that, even if we had an EEA-style agreement, there would still be damage to the UK economy. Is the Minister saying that he wants EEA-plus?

Greg Hands: I think I understand my hon. Friend’s intervention, but the Government have been clear for more than a year, since the Lancaster House speech, that our objective is not to seek an EEA-style agreement. Nor is it our objective to seek a CETA-style agreement. It is our objective to seek a deep and comprehensive agreement with the European Union, the like of which, I remind my hon. Friend, who I know studies these matters very carefully, was not modelled in those analyses. That is the most important point.

Chris Matheson: rose—

Greg Hands: I am going to make a bit of progress.
I am going to give a few examples of our work around Europe. I promoted the UK’s defence industry in Sweden, visiting Saab, whose new generation Gripen fighter jet could be worth £1.1 billion to UK industry.  I and my colleagues engaged with the Polish Government directly on behalf of UK companies to discuss high-value retail opportunities in the Czech Republic—in Czech, I might add, Madam Deputy Speaker. I and my colleagues from DIT and the Department for Exiting the European Union have addressed chambers of commerce right the way across the European Union—in Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, among many others. I enjoyed making use of my language skills when I gave speeches in German to senior business leaders in Munich, Düsseldorf, Osnabrück, Tegernsee and so on.
DIT’s relationship with Europe does not just extend to export and investment promotion. The vote to leave the EU was not a vote to undermine the EU. It is very important to understand that it is in this country’s interest to have a strong and effective EU. We continue to engage constructively in ongoing EU trade policy, as we currently are a full and equal member of the EU. As the House heard on Monday, we are working closely with our European partners as well as bilaterally to respond to President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I will make a bit more progress. We are committed to ratifying the CETA agreement with Canada, which provisionally came into effect in September. I was delighted that we were joined by 86 Labour MPs—many of whom are in the Chamber at the moment—who, in defiance of their Front-Bench team, supported the EU’s trade agenda in making sure that CETA was passed. In defiance of the party Whip, they voted for that important agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Canada.
We are supportive of the EU’s work to sign third-country trade agreements in future, and I have attended four Trade Ministers’ Foreign Affairs Councils, which included discussion of these. The Commission has been particularly focusing on agreements with South America’s Mercosur union and with Mexico. We continue to support the ongoing negotiations for both free trade agreements. On Mexico, we would like to see progress made wherever possible in the negotiations, although we recognise the complexity of North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations running in parallel. We will continue our support for EU-Mercosur trade negotiations and would like to emphasise the urgent need to progress the trade components. It is essential to keep momentum and to achieve a swift political agreement.
Another high-profile agreement is the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement, which the Commission is strongly pushing to fast-track, so that it can be signed during Japan’s Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Brussels in July 2018. As a champion of free trade, the UK has been one of the strongest advocates—actually, I believe the strongest advocate—of this EPA, and we warmly welcome the work of both sides to reach this agreement, which will support global prosperity. We continue to engage constructively on EU business and with our European partners, and we continue to push UK trade and investment to businesses on the European continent. It is important that our trade engagement includes Europe, because our trade with Europe—our nearest and largest neighbour—will always be of great importance.
I often hear the criticism that trade deals outside the EU cannot make up for a loss in EU trade—that has already been referred to in a couple of interventions—but, as I say, this is not an either/or choice. I can assure the House that the Government fully understand the importance of European trade. The EU is our largest trading partner, accounting for 43% of our exports and 54% of our imports. Complex and integrated supply chains across the UK and EU show the importance of making cross-border trade as free and frictionless as possible, and that is why it is important that we get our relationship with Europe right.

Phil Wilson: On frictionless trade, will the future be better than what we have now or worse?

Greg Hands: As I said, we are seeking a good, comprehensive, deep and wide trade partnership with the EU that is as frictionless as possible. That is why the right relationship is this deep, comprehensive and unique free trade agreement with Europe, based on the principles the Prime Minister set out throughout 2017 and in her speech a fortnight ago. We should oppose Labour’s latest Brexit policy of apparently keeping the UK in the, a, or perhaps any customs union with the EU. We want the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours, as well as to negotiate our own trade agreements around the world.

Alistair Carmichael: In the pursuit of this future relationship, will the Minister update the House on what progress has been made on the continuity of trading terms for our food and drink producers, especially in relation to the protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication schemes? Last week, the Secretary of State for Scotland guaranteed that there would be absolutely no change, but yesterday the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that absolutely nothing could be guaranteed. Who is correct?

Greg Hands: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to vote against the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and then to call for something that would be a consequence of that Bill: creating a new geographical indication scheme—by the way, we will be doing that in consultation with the devolved Administrations—to make sure that we continue to protect the UK’s 84 registered GIs within the UK. That is the Government’s objective, which I would hope he would support.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: No, I will make a little more progress.
We have heard questions about why we would want a bespoke trade agreement rather than taking one off the shelf, which, the argument goes, would involve easier negotiation. I remind the House of the Government’s reasons for choosing this approach over existing models, such as the EEA or CETA, and why whatever model we choose must involve leaving the customs union. A Norway-style deal might seem superficially attractive, but we would be subject to any new rules that the Commission chose to enact, automatically and in their entirety, with no endpoint. Most importantly, we would have little influence over those rules and no vote, which would be too much of a loss of democratic control, and also no guarantee—far from it—that whatever the EU27 did would also be in the interests of UK businesses and consumers.
Nor should we look to a Canadian-style agreement for the answer. Even if it were easier to achieve a CETA-style deal, we start from a unique position of regulatory alignment with the EU. Unlike other countries, we start from the position that our systems are already the same. It is precisely because the Government recognise how important EU trade is that we must look to an ambitious deal, rather than starting our relationship from scratch with something like CETA.
As important as trade with the EU is, however, we must also look outside Europe. The IMF—this statistic is also on the Commission’s website—estimates that over the next decade or so, 90% of global growth will come from beyond the EU. China adds an economy  the size of Switzerland every year. There will be over 1 billion middle-class African consumers in 2060, and Commonwealth GDP is predicted to hit $13 trillion in two years. These represent unprecedented opportunities, yet they are harder to reach from behind the EU’s customs wall. Only once we can sign our own independent trade deals can we take full advantage of them.
Signing those deals means being outside the customs union. We need look only to Turkey to see that being in the customs union, in whole or in part, can sometimes be the worst of all worlds.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Greg Hands: I want to make progress—it is very important that Members understand the point that I am making.
The EU is currently negotiating a deal with Japan. If it finalises that deal, of which, as I say, we are strongly supportive, Turkey will need to reduce tariffs on Japanese imports, but it will not get reciprocal access to the Japanese market. It will have to negotiate its own access, but those negotiations will be more difficult because Turkey will already have reduced its own tariffs and therefore will not have as much to give in return. As the Prime Minister has set out repeatedly, we are looking for a bespoke agreement. For goods, this will be based on a comprehensive system of mutual recognition so that products need be approved only once. On services, we have an opportunity to establish a broader agreement than ever before.

Anna Soubry: My right hon. Friend is being very kind and generous in giving way, especially as I am really not helping him. With the greatest respect, he knows, as everyone else does, that we will and can achieve all these deals with countries such as China as a member of the EU. By way of example, I have met the Australian ambassador, and while he would of course want to do a trade deal with our great country, Australia will look first to do a trade deal with the EU, with its 500 million customers. Is it not important that we make all these things very clear to the British people? We do trade deals at the moment by virtue of our membership of the EU, and the only reason why we are leaving the customs union is to chase unicorn deals, but we can get deals with the EU.

Eleanor Laing: Order. It was quite in order for the Minister to give way to the right hon. Lady, but she knows that her intervention was too long, because she said so the last time—I heard her.

Greg Hands: It was a long intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With all due respect to my right hon. Friend—she and I served alongside each other in government—the British people have made the decision to leave the European Union. That was the crucial decision made in June 2016. The Government’s purpose is now to ensure that we have the best possible frictionless trade deal with the European Union, while still being able to take  advantage of trade opportunities beyond the EU. As I have stated repeatedly during this debate, that is the Government’s objective.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: No. I have already used up 25 minutes, and I am going to make a little more progress.
On services, we have the opportunity to establish a broader agreement than ever before. Of course we recognise that we cannot have the rights of single market membership, such as passporting for financial services, just as we understand that we cannot have all the benefits of single market membership without the obligations, but that does not mean that we should be shackled by existing precedent.
I know that some Members will ask how we can be sure that the EU will agree to our approach. The main point to bear in mind is that it is strongly in EU countries’ interests—economic and otherwise—to sign and agree such a deal. On the day we leave, the United Kingdom will overnight become the EU’s second largest trading partner—larger than China, Japan or India. The Commission estimates trade between the UK and the EU27 to be worth €812 billion. That is only 8% behind the EU27’s main trading partner, the United States, but it is 60% more than with China, which comes third.
Given the effort that the EU has put into deals with the likes of Mexico, Vietnam and Singapore—all of which, crucially, we support, but each of which is significantly less important to the EU than ours—it would be odd indeed for it to reject proposals from us. Furthermore, both the EU and the UK need to send a loud and clear message that we are strong believers in free trade. What message would be sent if we could not reach a free trade agreement?
However, even that underestimates our importance to the EU, because it is the type of trade that matters, not just the volume. Our strongest comparative advantages are in the business, professional and financial services that other businesses need to grow, and in the pharmaceutical goods that no one wants to exclude. For an advanced economy, good financial infrastructure is just as important as physical infrastructure, even if it is not as obvious. Restricting Europe’s access to the City’s financial infrastructure would be the act of a latter-day Beeching—although this time the main line would be closed, not the branch. Yes, the rest of the network could try and pick up the slack—the Frankfurts or Parises—but as I know, because I have worked in the sector, that network has less capacity and is less efficient, and EU businesses and manufacturers could not connect with the capital market that they need. The EU talks about a capital markets union, but how tenable is that without access to Europe’s main capital market?
Our relationship goes beyond mutual economic interest, however. Our membership of the EU is only one part of our relationship with Europe. We can still be neighbours when we leave: we are 30 km from the coast of France. We have cultural ties from before the EU was founded. We will still be in the same core organisations that the EU or its members are part of, from the European Court of Human Rights to the UN to NATO, and from the International Monetary Fund to the World Trade Organisation—the economic, security and humanitarian firmament that holds the international system together.

Vicky Ford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Hands: No. I am about to finish.
Nevertheless, the Department for International Trade is preparing this country for life outside the EU. We are proceeding with trade and customs Bills that will give us a functioning customs regime on day one. As one would expect, they have been designed to prepare us for every eventuality, although they will be needed regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU. They will give us a strong trade remedies regime. Free trade does not mean trade without rules, but Labour opposed these new powers when they were considered on Second Reading. Our independent trade remedies regime will allow us to protect UK industry from unfair dumping or subsidy, while balancing its interests against the interests of UK consumers and other UK businesses. It will be delivered through an independent trade remedies authority so that businesses have the confidence they need that it will be impartial and will not act against the interests of wider industry. I want to make sure that this new regime works as well for business as it should from the start. We are consulting on which existing EU trade remedies we should carry over, and I encourage any business with an interest to respond before the consultation closes at the end of this month, and any Members with producer or consumer interests to help to publicise this.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill will also allow us to create a UK unilateral trade preferences regime for developing countries. Shockingly, this was also opposed by Labour, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats on Second Reading. The UK is a proud advocate of supporting developing countries to reduce poverty through trade, and I hope that Labour will reconsider its stance. This Bill will let us continue the UK’s existing system of preferential access for developing countries, which reduces or removes import tariffs from a number of countries, while also allowing us to explore improvements on the EU’s current system.
Leaving the European Union will allow us to negotiate trade deals across the world but, at the same time, this Government understand the importance of EU trade. That is why we seek a deep and special partnership with the EU. This is the only appropriate option. Members of all parties should be optimistic that that can be achieved.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesman, let me say that while it is clear that a great many Members wish to speak, we have limited time, so there will be an initial time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches, which is likely to reduce. I make this announcement so that Members can tailor their speeches accordingly.

Matthew Pennycook: It was a year ago yesterday that this House voted overwhelmingly to give the Prime Minister the authority to trigger article 50. It is almost a year since she did so and nearly 20 months since the referendum result that set that process in train. The Government accepted the EU timetable, and while the cut-off point might ultimately slip by a week or even two, the draft withdrawal agreement, including the framework for the future relationship, will have to be wrapped up in just seven months’ time.
We welcome the joint report published in December last year and the progress it represented, but the fact remains that the Government are running out of time and of road, so, frankly, it is extraordinary that, despite the scale of the legislative task confronting us between now and exit day, the Government have decided that the best use of our time is two days of general debate on European affairs without even the possibility of a vote.
While we welcome any and every chance to debate Brexit and Europe, this is a farcical situation. No date has been set for the Report stage of either the Customs Bill or the trade Bill, as the Government rightly fear a possible defeat. The immigration Bill we are now told will hopefully be with us before Christmas, a year after it was initially expected, but as the Home Secretary has made clear, it might not even be law by the day we leave. And there is absolutely no sign of the fisheries or agriculture Bills, or, for that matter, anything that could reasonably be described as a domestic legislative agenda. As Philip Cowley, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London has said:
“This is an approach to parliamentary democracy known to procedural experts as: Run Away.”
The reason for this legislative paralysis is obvious: the Conservative party remains bitterly divided over how to implement Brexit and what the future relationship with the EU27 should be.

Anna Soubry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and I am going to be honest about all this: that there is some division on these Benches, but, equally, there is division still on the hon. Gentleman’s Benches? While the move to a customs union has been welcomed, does he anticipate that we might see more movement to the customs union and of course to accepting that the single market would also be a good way to settle it?

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. We do need to be honest about this. An issue of this magnitude and importance is bound to create different views in all parties, but I would argue that the divisions on the Labour Benches are nothing like the fundamental divisions in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches. Certainly, the divisions on our side are not preventing legislation from being brought forward for us to vote on.

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I just want to make a bit of progress, if that is okay.
The Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech on 2 March was as much an attempt to muffle those divisions as it was to provide clarity on the Government’s vision of the end-state relationship. To be fair, it was a more serious and detailed speech than those that had gone before, and it was pleasingly devoid of empty sloganeering. There was no repeat of earlier banalities such as “Brexit means Brexit” or “a red, white and blue Brexit”. At last, we heard a speech that started to engage with many of the hard truths about our departure from the EU. It stressed the need for compromise on all sides and conceded that inevitable trade-offs would have to be made if we were to avoid the hardest and most damaging of departures. As with her Florence speech in September last year, one wished that that content could have been  delivered far earlier in the process. Had it been, I suspect that the country would have been in a better position today.
Judging by the raft of tortuous cherry and cake metaphors that we heard from the Government Benches in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, she might have succeeded in her immediate objective of holding together her deeply divided Government and party and in giving herself a small degree of room to manoeuvre in the months ahead. However, it is patently obvious that those divisions remain as deep as ever. That is blindingly obvious. If they had been healed, we would now be considering the Report stage of the Customs Bill or the trade Bill, rather than having a general debate such as this. Make no mistake, those divisions will have to be confronted, and the sensible majority in this House will have to be given the opportunity to shape the Brexit process sooner rather than later, not least because, although the Prime Minister’s speech was more realistic in important ways, it was still not realistic enough.

Emma Reynolds: One of the things that the Prime Minister said in her speech was that we will inevitably have less access as a result of the hard Brexit that the Government are pursuing. Does my hon. Friend agree that less access to our biggest market will mean fewer jobs, less investment and less economic growth?

Matthew Pennycook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have put it better myself.
The theme of today’s debate is international trade. The sections relating to customs were arguably the least convincing parts of the Prime Minister’s speech. In contrast to other areas, there was no attempt to engage with the hard truths about what leaving the customs union will mean for the UK, and particularly with the impact of that decision on manufacturing and the Irish border. As the House knows, the Prime Minister simply went back to the two propositions that the Government set out in their future partnership paper published on 15 August last year. They were a
“customs partnership between the UK and the EU”
or
“a highly streamlined customs arrangement, where we”—
that is, the UK—
“would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade, together with specific provisions for Northern Ireland.”
The first proposition is untried and untested. By the Government’s own admission, it would take at least five years to implement and it would be ripe for abuse. It was roundly rejected by the EU last year, not least because it would require EU member states to completely reconfigure their own national customs systems. The idea is not simply “blue sky thinking”, as the Secretary of State described it in September last year; it is pie-in-the-sky thinking.
The second option would, according to the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, take three years to put in place and would result in friction on our borders. It would therefore require a range of measures, including unproven “technology-based solutions”, to minimise frictions to trade. In her speech, the Prime Minister claimed that both those options were serious  and merited consideration, but they were widely rubbished in the wake of that speech. The EU immediately ruled them out as non-starters.
The truth is that the Government have absolutely no idea about what to do about the issue of customs and the Irish border. The fall-back that surfaced in the EU Commission draft legal text published on 28 February—namely, that Northern Ireland should go into a customs union with the south and that the UK border should  be shifted to somewhere in the Irish sea—is clearly unacceptable. The Prime Minister quite rightly made it clear that no UK Prime Minister could accept such an outcome. That means that the Irish border issue remains unresolved.
One part of a wider solution to the border issue would be, as the Opposition have suggested, to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union. Such a customs union would ensure that goods covered by the agreement could still be traded with the EU tariff free, with no new customs or rules of origin checks. The exact terms of such a customs union would, of course, have to be negotiated, but this represents a pragmatic proposal, reflecting current arrangements, and it has been welcomed by trade unions and by business, including the Manufacturers Organisation—formerly the EEF—and the CBI. It would be a win-win for both the UK and the EU27. A new UK-EU customs union would not prevent the UK from trading globally or improving our export industry, just as the EU customs union has not stopped Germany making China its largest trading partner, for example. Germany now exports four times more to China than the UK. The UK would still be free, as we are now, to negotiate in the areas of services, data, investment, procurement and intellectual property, and UK businesses would still be able to export to non-EU markets just as other EU countries do. In short, there is no question but that the UK could and would still increase trade inside a customs union with the EU, as the Secretary of State for International Trade said earlier this year in relation to the Prime Minister’s visit to China.
A new, comprehensive UK-EU customs union, were it agreed, would of course require the UK to adopt a common external tariff with the EU, and we would of course seek both to replicate existing EU trade agreements and benefit from negotiated future deals. It is true that we would not be able to negotiate independent third-party trade deals but, as many hon. Members have already mentioned, we need to face up to some hard facts in this area, because the notion that future free trade agreements will offset the inevitable economic costs of exiting a customs union with the EU is nonsense. To say, as the Minister did, that it is simply not an either/or question does not get to the heart of the issue that confronts us.

Vicky Ford: When the hon. Gentleman says that he wants to stay in a customs union with the EU, will he confirm that he will continue to comply with EU state aid and competition law as a condition of staying in that customs union? I cannot find a single example of a country that can stay in the customs union while disregarding state aid laws.

Matthew Pennycook: The hon. Lady has great expertise in this area, but I think she has slightly misjudged the fact, as I understand it, that that is not about customs, but about the elements that make up the single market.  We have said that we would seek, in principle, to negotiate protections, clarifications or exemptions where necessary, but I cannot imagine a situation in which those exemptions would be necessary. As I think the Leader of the Opposition said on “Peston on Sunday” some time ago, there is nothing in the current state aid rules that would prevent us from implementing, for example, our manifesto.
Many hon. Members have already mentioned this, but Sir Martin Donnelly, the former permanent secretary at the Department for International Trade, said that the reality is that what the Government are proposing is akin to giving up
“a three-course meal... for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future”.
The EU currently constitutes 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports. It must be our priority. Increases in trade from new free trade agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined would be worth less than 3% of our current trade in goods and services.

Mark Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I will make a bit of progress.
FTAs with the BRIC countries would be worth just over 2%. Any such trade deals, even if they could be secured reasonably quickly, would in all likelihood also involve detrimental trade-offs and compromises in standards and regulations with which the British public would rightly take issue.

Alex Sobel: On that point about regulation, the Government’s leaked cross-Whitehall EU exit analysis paper outlines the regulatory opportunities of Brexit and states:
“A cross-Whitehall work-stream is working through these opportunities.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is code for deregulation and the ripping up of our workplace environment rights? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already unable to give us any clarification about the European Environment Agency. Is this not just a bonfire of our rights?

Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend. That is certainly the fear. I read the same analysis that he did—I had to surrender my phone to do so and then found that it had been released publicly a week later—and it does say in several places that there are opportunities to deregulate. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why those things are being modelled and to what they might refer.
One has only to listen to the noises coming from the United States Government on issues ranging from  the replacement of the EU-US open skies treaty to the inclusion of agriculture in any FTA to get a sense of how difficult things will be even when it comes to new deals with some of our closest allies, and that is irrespective of who occupies the White House. The prospect of new free trade agreements might give the International Trade Secretary a purpose, but they would be good for little else.

Mark Garnier: I want to go back to the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about Sir Martin Donnelly, whom I worked with for a number of months; he is a civil servant of extreme ability and wisdom. When he  made the banquet versus the packet of crisps analogy, I think he was looking to a certain extent at some of those simple gravity models used by the Treasury—the simple mathematical trade-off between tariffs with the EU and tariffs elsewhere.
What is missed in all this debate is the ability of the UK to find itself at the centre of a network of trade deals. For example, a US manufacturer might see the advantage in moving its manufacturing operations to the UK to take advantage of a UK-India trade deal, for example, if the trade relationship between the UK and India was greater and better than that between America and India directly. That is the unknown that we are struggling to analyse, to get the true comparison between one type of relationship and the other.

Matthew Pennycook: I simply do not think that that stacks up. I listened to Sir Martin’s comments very carefully, and I am not sure that he was referring to that. However, if the hon. Gentleman makes a speech, I will be personally interested in hearing his points.

Emma Reynolds: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I am going to make progress, as lots of people want to speak.
A sensible, pragmatic Government focused on the economic interests of the country would adjust their policy accordingly and consider the option of a new, comprehensive customs union along the lines that Labour has suggested. Importantly, so would any Government committed, as this Government are under the terms of the phase 1 agreement, to the avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls—a border that is frictionless, not as frictionless as possible. Let us be clear: a border that has checks, even “very, very minimal” checks, as the Foreign Secretary suggested to a business audience last week, is still a border that would require some kind of infrastructure and patrols.
A version of the Canada-US border, which the Prime Minister suggested was being explored, is simply not good enough. The threat that such an outcome would pose to the politics, security and economy of the island of Ireland, as well as to the daily lives of citizens on both sides of the border, are obvious to most hon. Members.
We recognise that a new, comprehensive customs union, in itself, is not a complete solution to the Irish border issue. To obviate the need for physical infrastructure on and checks at that border and to uphold the Good Friday agreement in its entirety, in all three strands, full regulatory alignment in relation to all goods production and trade would be required. That alignment would, of course, have to be maintained over time as EU legislation evolved.
That is one of the reasons why we need to secure a new agreement that gives us the closest possible relationship with the single market: full access to European markets; no new impediments to trade; no drop in the rights, standards and protections built up over our 43 years as an EU member state; and no prospect of falling behind them in the future. We must recognise that our future economic relationship depends on maintaining a level playing field and the same standards that business wants.
But when it comes to goods, a conversation with the EU27 about full regulatory alignment, and the institutional mechanisms that might be required to facilitate such alignment, is not even possible when the Government have ruled out membership of a customs union. The idea that
“a comprehensive system of mutual recognition”
is an alternative solution—something that EU member states do not even expect of each other—is mistaken. There is no solution to the Irish border issue that does not involve some form of customs union. That is why the Government must reconsider their red line in this area. If they do not, it will be difficult to see what their solution to the Irish border issue—or, indeed, the issue of a customs border at Dover—might be. That matters because, although the Government may be able to fudge some of the difficult decisions for now, the issue of the Irish border issue can no longer be fudged.

Caroline Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I am just coming to a close.
The draft withdrawal agreement merely needs to include a political declaration on the future relationship—that is, its broad outlines—with the details to be hammered out after the UK has left the EU.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: I will not give way.
But the Irish border issue is an integral part of the withdrawal agreement. Without a solution to it, it is very difficult to imagine how the Government secure an orderly exit deal or a transition period, let alone a post-Brexit trade deal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We now have a time limit of eight minutes.

Paul Masterton: I am pleased to speak in today’s general debate and talk a little about my views as we move towards phase 3, with a specific focus on the pensions, asset management and long-term savings industries, and our future trade in those services.
Some 24% of people employed in the UK in the general insurance, life assurance and pensions sector work in Scotland—many in my constituency of East Renfrewshire, due to its access to the Glasgow financial district and the central belt as a whole, as well as the easy links down to London. These industries want a deal. Why? It is because no deal means that banks, insurance companies and fund managers could not provide services across the UK from the EU. Contracts, particularly for derivatives, which run over exit day could simply become unenforceable. Business liability insurance contracts often stretch decades ahead. Insurers could, as a result of a no deal Brexit, lose their licence to do insurance in the customer’s jurisdiction. Cross-border pension payments from the UK into the EU and vice versa simply could not be paid. It would defy common sense not to have a Brexit deal on financial services, given that the insurance and long-term savings sectors are so largely aligned and integrated, and our trade in services is vital to both parties.
The UK’s asset management industry is the second largest in the world, managing nearly £7 trillion-worth of assets, serving a global client base. Similarly, numerous investment funds used by pension providers are set up under Irish law or other EU-based jurisdictions. More than 150 UK managers are managing Irish funds right now, with more than 2,000 Irish-domiciled funds sold in the UK. That is more than €600 billion in fund assets managed by UK managers in Ireland on behalf of UK investors.
The Association of British Insurers said last summer that a no deal Brexit is “unacceptable”. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association was even more blunt when it said:
“WTO-only would cause major disruption. On no account could the pension fund industry support a regime based only on WTO rules. This would be likely to cause economic harm, create regulatory barriers and undermine essential pensions support services.”
That was why the industry welcomed the Mansion House speech. Clarification and honesty of the reality of what we are confronting allows people to move forward. If we leave the single market, passporting, which is a central pillar of the EU financial services regime, will end. Currently, there are 336,421 passports held by UK firms, and many firms hold multiple passports for multiple member states. The London Market Group recently published figures suggesting that the UK insurance sector takes in £14 billion a year of business connected with the EU.
That clarity was needed. Now we need to start talking about successor arrangements, with the transitional period being a time for firms to adapt to changes in the marketplace and regulatory structures. A primary risk for institutions that access EU markets from the UK is the post-Brexit loss of that access on a short-term or longer-term basis, because no equivalence decision has been issued in time. A lack of agreement on equivalence would also affect elements of financial services infrastructure, such as access to clearing houses or payment services, or the provision of custody services to certain clients.
Bottoming out that equivalence process for the UK as a third country must be a priority. If we want to maintain and enhance this country’s position as the leading global financial centre, we will need to be regulated in accordance with the highest global standards. That is important for not just UK firms, but third country institutions, such as those based in the US or Hong Kong, which cannot make use of the passport system and must establish an authorised presence in an EU member state. For this reason, many third country institutions have chosen to base themselves in London through a UK subsidiary as their primary point of access to EU markets through passporting, and we want them to be able to continue to do so.
We also need to agree successor arrangements for passporting of deposit taking and lending business under the capital requirements directive and the alternative investment fund managers directive. Third country recognition is absolutely vital, and the process for that needs to have been sorted out long before we have left. UCITS—Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities—are required to have their management companies established in an EU member state, and so a bespoke mutual recognition agreement that would allow UK entities to continue fulfil their UCITS roles will be necessary.
Pension schemes are subject to EU legislation, both as institutional investors affected by EU financial market regulation, such as MiFID II—the markets in financial instruments directive—and the European market infrastructure regulation on the derivatives market, and, significantly, directly under the directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision, on workplace pension schemes. IORP II is due to be implemented in the UK by January 2019.
During the negotiation of IORP II, the UK was successful in warding off the threat of an EU solvency regime for pensions, which could have resulted in a bill for British business of up to €650 billion. This remains on the agenda of EIOPA—the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority—which is the EU-level pensions regulatory body. Everyone knows I would like the maximum possible access to the single market, but it is essential that any future moves by the EU to propose a new EU solvency regime should not apply to defined benefit schemes in the UK. The absolute worst case scenario for UK pension schemes would be to find themselves more vulnerable outside the EU to the damaging regulation that was successfully blocked when the UK was inside the EU.
More broadly, a good trade deal is vital to the pensions industry because of the significance to employers that sponsor pension schemes across the manufacturing sector. A bad Brexit will have huge detrimental economic impacts on those sectors, which would put huge pressure on those employers’ ability to fund their schemes. Pension schemes need full access to the global financial markets, both for investments that will give them the resources to meet their pension commitments, and for de-risking and hedging purposes so that they can manage their risks. We need the UK financial services industry to remain as strong and vibrant as it is today.
I have spoken in two Westminster Hall debates recently: one on the European Free Trade Association and one on alternatives to a no deal Brexit. I shall not repeat what I said there, but I remain of the view that EFTA-EEA membership finds a neat balance by reflecting that the EU referendum result, although decisive, was not overwhelming. Is it a perfect option? No. I want that bespoke deal and believe and trust in the Prime Minister to bring back the best terms possible, but if we need a plan B, for whatever reason, it cannot be to crash out on World Trade Organisation rules. The Prime Minister should have the maximum flexibility she needs to do the right deal and should not being hemmed in by individuals and groups from either side of the Chamber.
Back in East Renfrewshire, are people dancing down the streets of Barrhead and Clarkston at the thought of Britain leaving the EU? No. But they are not drawing down the blinds and taking to their beds, either. What they want, and what they need, are practical, workable solutions to be put forward in the national interest, pragmatism over ideology, and optimism that is merited but grounded in reality. That is why the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech was so welcome. This is a negotiation, but I hope that the EU will engage with the suggestions constructively and that we will be able, at long last, to move forward at pace.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that the House is much better behaved today than it was yesterday, because we are being observed this afternoon by our colleagues and friends from the Parliament of Afghanistan, whom I am delighted to welcome to Westminster. I hope that they will find our deliberations on Europe enlightening.

Stephen Gethins: I add the Scottish National party’s welcome to our colleagues and friends from Afghanistan.
Here we are with yet another European Union debate. I was elected almost three years ago. After I was appointed Europe spokesperson, the European Union Referendum Bill was introduced. Europe has dominated my time here, but that is because it is important. Almost three years on, I think it is fairly safe to say that things are not going terribly well for the Government.
The EU has brought us a huge number of benefits. I am somebody who has enjoyed some of those benefits through education, which we can access regardless of our backgrounds and our financial means, and through freedom of movement, from which not only do we benefit, because we can work and live throughout the EU, but our economy benefits, because of the people coming to the United Kingdom to live and work.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) was right in the preceding speech to highlight some of the difficulties faced by financial services in his constituency. In my constituency, I am regularly approached about issues on which we still do not have an answer, such as seasonal workers and the food and drink industry, which relies so heavily on seasonal workers and freedom of movement. We have had no clear answers from the Government.
All that is important right now, because some farmers have told me about a decline in the numbers of seasonal workers. What does that mean for crops that are planted in advance for the following years, many of which need to be taken in by hand? Business decisions for after we have left the EU need to be made now. There is precious little certainty and precious little decision making going on about what is going to happen after 29 March next year and, crucially, in the harvest period after that. The tourist sector also relies heavily on seasonal workers and freedom of movement.
I have just mentioned some of the benefits that EU membership brings to students. We must also reflect on the fact that our centres of education and research rely on the excellence that comes from being their being able to tap into a pool of talent and the benefits of freedom of movement, as well as the benefits that are brought by Horizon 2020 and the other programmes that are so important.
The biggest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews, and a great deal of people who live locally work at the University of Dundee and Abertay University, and even at the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh. Education and research is a big industry and a big employer. Not only are those jobs important and not only are these learning establishments at which our young people and mature people can grow and increase their skills, thereby improving our economy, but the industry will benefit us in the years to come as we get those breakthroughs on things like dementia, dyslexia and helping kids to have a better  educational experience through some of the research that has been done by EU nationals and through Horizon 2020.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. Does he agree that it is extraordinary to see a Government so proudly leading the country into a situation in which we will all be so much poorer, not just economically but in the terms he describes—the richness of our relationships with other EU countries in our research establishments and elsewhere, which are so important? It is young people whose futures are being closed down in a most unforgivable way.

Stephen Gethins: As usual, the hon. Lady makes an excellent and powerful point, and hon. Members opposite would do well to listen to her—in fact, the hon. Members beside her might do well to do so too sometimes. I will come on to the finances that she rightly raises, but before I do I want to talk about the broader impact on public services in areas such as access to the single market, which is so important in decreasing red tape. We often hear about red tape, but access to the single market has reduced red tape, not least for our SMEs. I have mentioned seasonal workers, but we must also think about the impact on services and on our doctors, nurses and dentists who enjoy freedom of movement and come from throughout the European Union. It can be difficult to get a dentist and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) often mentions the practice in his constituency that is made up of several EU nationals.
The single market makes us more competitive. I just mentioned the benefits of Horizon 2020, and the European Medicines Agency is also important—it is based in London, but it is due to be taken away, taking jobs  with it.
Another issue is cash for public services, as the hon. Lady just mentioned. The UK Government talk about finding common ground between themselves and the Scottish Government. There is one area of common ground between them—the Minister is right to look up at that point. They agree in their analysis that leaving the EU will be devastating for the economies of both Scotland and the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government’s figures—we were told that they were not right until the UK Government’s figures suddenly came out and agreed with them—showed that the hit on our GDP will be devastating in every single scenario set out. Every 1% reduction in GDP could hit tax by £8 billion, but that does not even start to address the amount of money that we will have to shell out just to leave the European Union, reported to be £40 billion. The Chancellor is preparing to leave with initial costs—initial—of £3 billion. The Financial Times estimates that Brexit has already cost the UK economy £18 billion, or about £350 million a week. I am not sure where we have heard that figure before.
If we have lower GDP and less money from the tax take, we will have less money to spend on public services—that is a basic fact. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have made changes in tax so that the majority are no worse off or better off, but that will raise an additional £164 million. That is welcome, but it is only a drop in the ocean of the money that we will need to try to save our public services from the hits that will come their way. If anyone could tell me how they will plug the gap  in public services that will be caused, I would be delighted to hear from them. Would anybody like to make an intervention? I did not think so. Nobody has a clue—

Ross Thomson: The whole premise of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is based on figures that do not take into account at all of what the Prime Minister has set out to achieve, which is a special and deep partnership with the European Union. The figures that he quotes are the same figures that Scottish National party Members campaigned on during the referendum, when they predicted that there would be a recession and that the economy would fall off a cliff. They were false prophets then and they are false prophets now.

Stephen Gethins: I salute the hon. Gentleman’s courage in bringing that up, but I am actually using his own Government’s figures.

Chris Matheson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Antoinette Sandbach: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Gethins: I would like to make a little bit of progress, but I will come to the hon. Members in just a moment.
I am using this Government’s figures. We need to have a real and proper debate about how we plug the gaps in tax and in GDP.

Chris Matheson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously gone through a methodical process of working out the effect of Brexit on GDP. Has he worked out the effect on GDP of an empty Tory slogan?

Stephen Gethins: Well, we have worked out the impact on the NHS and on education, and that will be devastating to our public services because of the empty promises that each and every one of us will pay for.

Stewart Hosie: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Gethins: I will just make a little bit of progress.
I say gently to the Government Benches that there are serious issues around tax raised and GDP that we must all wrestle with in a serious manner, offering some suggestions, but right now the Government are not handling some of the big issues of the day. Time that is being taken up with this issue is strangling political debate. The strikes in our universities right now are crucial for all parties and we should all take them seriously; yet, as we look to a fair solution, this matter cannot be a priority because this Government are so consumed by Brexit and what is going on with leaving the European Union that other issues simply get ignored. Brexit strangles that proper and serious debate.

Antoinette Sandbach: I do not want the impression to be given to this House that the recent figures published by the Exiting the European Union Committee were the same as the figures that were used pre-referendum. Two totally different economic models were used. It would be wrong for the record of this House to suggest that the figures used before the referendum were the same as the ones after.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I note the differences that I sometimes have with her, but she makes an honest point. I note the correction to those Members on her Benches who have been avoiding the figures from their own Government.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on the customs union, and I hope that he will go to the next step on the single market. I particularly note and am grateful for his remarks on Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is one area that has been overlooked. The danger to the peace process is not something that any of us should take lightly, regardless of the views of different Members across this House. We have to take it seriously.
I know that my hon. Friends will talk about the continuity Bill in Holyrood, where we find the Conservatives utterly isolated in their latest power grab. When challenged, they say that we have to choose between the UK and the EU. That is nonsense and highlights the utter isolationism that sits at the hearts of many—not all—Government Members who reach out for this “ourselves alone” approach.
We need to start looking at where we can make progress. I have seen one silver lining in this House, for which I pay credit to Members from across the parties. I am seeing—from my short experience, I will admit—Members from across the House seeking to work together better than they have done before. It is not always easy, but Members are trying to put their differences aside and to find a way through. I salute a number of Members who have been able to do this.
Let me offer my own suggestion. Scotland voted to remain part of the European Union, as has been noted by Members in this House and by Members of Parliament from across the European Union. I suggest that bridges need to be built with our European partners economically. Whether we like it or not, this has been a shock to the system. It is really important. We need to build our economic ties. We would like to see support for immigration. If we can keep the Environment Secretary to his promises on immigration, that will be a good start. Scotland stands ready to try to rebuild those ties. Our economic ties with the rest of the United Kingdom are obviously important, but those with the single market and the rest of the European Union are crucial as well. I appeal to Members: look at your own statistics, look at the damage that is being done, and reach out to the devolved Administrations and to other Governments. This will hit our public services. We see people switching off with regard to this debate, but they will not switch off when it comes to a hit to the NHS in terms of personnel and cash, and a hit to education and other services. We have asymmetrical devolution in the United Kingdom; we should use it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, it is International Ask a Question Day. My question to Government Members is: do you know what you are doing and are you aware of the devastating damage you are doing?

David Duguid: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I start by responding to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who said that 62% of the people in  Scotland voted to remain in the EU. What they actually voted for was for the UK to remain in the EU, which is a totally different question. They did not vote for an independent Scotland to be in the EU.
In fact, as I have said in this House before, a majority in my constituency voted for the UK to leave the European Union. This information is based on research conducted by the University of East Anglia that broke down the Scottish vote in the EU referendum by Westminster constituency boundaries and found that 54% of voters in my constituency voted leave. Of course, this should come as no surprise when one considers that my constituency is home to several large fishing communities and active ports. About 35% of the UK’s white fish landings come in through the towns of Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff in my constituency.
A University of Aberdeen study conducted ahead of the EU referendum found that 92% of British fishermen planned to vote leave. The study was of fishermen across the UK, but 68% of the sample was made up of Scottish fishermen. Fishing communities around the whole of the UK have suffered for decades under the common fisheries policy, and this is a historic wrong that must be put right. We owe it to all our fishing communities to make a success of our post-Brexit fisheries management. When we leave the EU, we leave the common fisheries policy and become an independent coastal state. We must not weaken our hand in future annual coastal state negotiations by bargaining away access to our exclusive economic zone as part of a longer-term trade deal with the EU. With regard to reciprocal access, it is worth noting that compared with the 100,000 tonnes of fish caught in EU waters by UK vessels, the amount caught by EU vessels in UK waters is 700,000 tonnes. British fishermen catch only 40% of fish in UK waters, compared with 84% by Norwegian vessels in their waters and 95% by Icelandic vessels in theirs.
It is not just the fishermen who want us to leave the EU. A survey in The Scottish Farmer found that two thirds of Scottish farmers said they had voted to leave the EU. The National Farmers Union of Scotland believes the result to have been closer to 50:50, but it cannot be denied that a great many Scottish farmers will be glad to see the back of the EU and the common agricultural policy. A single common agricultural  policy that was designed to work in a common way from the Arctic circle in the north all the way down  to the Mediterranean led to an over-complicated, bureaucratic,“one size fits none” system. Scotland’s food and drink industry is too important to neglect. Globally renowned Scotch salmon and whisky are not just important to the Scottish economy but among the UK’s top exports.
I am very encouraged by the UK Government’s commitment to deliver the same level of farm support until the end of this Parliament. I know that many members of the seafood processing community would like to know whether something similar can be done to match the funding that currently comes from the European maritime and fisheries fund.
As other hon. Members have said, one impact of Brexit where there is concern from farmers and fishermen, particularly those in the food processing business, is the ability to supplement their workforce with labour from inside and outside the European Union on a level playing field. In the long term, these industries must be  made sustainable with local labour, but that is not going to happen overnight, and in the interim period we will need a stopgap to ensure that the industry can continue to function. This was already an issue before Brexit, as there is not an infinite supply of EU labour for these industries. What is crucial, though, is that after we leave the EU we will take back control of our borders, our laws, our money and our waters.

Hilary Benn: I apologise for not being able to be present for the conclusion of the debate tomorrow.
We should be very grateful that we have the opportunity over two days to discuss European affairs, but it is a reminder that there is one thing Ministers do not want us to be doing, which is voting on any amendments to keep us in a customs union. This is definitely going to be remembered as the Brexit Parliament. It is undoubtedly the Back Benchers’ Parliament. At the moment, it is running the risk of becoming the voteless Parliament, because business managers are scrambling around to fill the time with anything other than votes on important matters. Ministers are not going to be able to put those votes off permanently.
One of the reasons that there is so much support for the idea of remaining in a customs union was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) in his excellent opening speech, and that is that it would provide part of the solution to the problem of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which continues to rumble unresolved under the surface of the Brexit negotiations.
The truth is that the House divides into two camps on the subject of the border. There is one view that says, “It’s all right,” because there will be a technological solution that will get around the incompatibility between the policy the Government have adopted, with the very high bar they have rightly set of no checks, no infrastructure and an open border, and their determination to leave the single market and the customs union at the same time. The second view, which I share, is that we cannot currently see how those two contradictions can be resolved.
We have been taking evidence in the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union and looking at free trade agreements all over the world. Every single one of them—every single one—involves some checks on some goods. It does not matter whether it is Norway and Sweden or Canada and the United States of America. Even the much quoted but clearly little read by its proponents European Parliament report “Smart Border 2.0” acknowledges that, even with the most up-to-date technology, there would still need to be physical infrastructure, which is not compatible with maintaining an open border. Of course, the Government published their two documents last summer and we should explore all the options. I recognise that the suspension of belief is essential to the magician’s art, but it is not a very sound foundation for Government policy.
Although we are none the wiser about what is going to happen in Northern Ireland, we did learn, in fairness, a bit more about the Prime Minister’s approach in her Mansion House speech. Despite all the advance briefing about ambitious managed divergence, which I hope has   now disappeared into the dustbin of history, the Prime Minister did speak a great deal about maintaining regulatory alignment. I welcome that.
The other thing that was striking about that speech was the frankness with which the Prime Minister acknowledged that we will inevitably have less access to our most important market, compared with what we have at the moment. It has taken a long time to get to this point of realism. Who remembers “We’re going to get the exact same benefits”, which was the Secretary of State’s cry for many months?
The truth—that we are going to have less access—is the reason why the pound fell after the referendum. It is why the UK has gone from being one of the fastest growing of the world’s advanced economies to the slowest, which has just been confirmed. The question remains for the House: what is the right approach to manage the risks of damage to the British economy as the process unfolds?
I think we all agree that continuing tariff-free trade is essential, and I simply say that the most effective way of achieving that would be to remain in a customs union with the European Union. We have heard from the Minister that 43% or 44% of our exports go to this market, and a further 17% go to countries with which we have trade agreements. It would be great if, in responding today, the Minister could confirm how the Government are getting on with ensuring that those agreements will roll over during the transitional period, so that businesses know the terms on which they will trade.

Jim Cunningham: My right hon. Friend has touched on the issue of businesses. Companies such as Jaguar Land Rover in my constituency do not know where they are in relation to regulation of research and development, and there is nothing forthcoming from the Government on that.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one of a whole host of examples that Members on both sides of the House are aware of. Businesses in our constituencies are asking how it is going to work, because at the moment we do not know.
Staying in a customs union is what the CBI wants, and I am afraid that the Government’s policy on international trade is one of Micawberism. Given the fondness of the President of the United States for punitive tariffs and the clear desire of the American Administration to open up our agricultural market, which is not what the Environment Secretary said he wants, do we really think that concluding a trade agreement with the US is going to happen any time soon? Do we really think we are going to get a trade deal with India before we have agreed to give more visas to its citizens?
The Minister for Trade Policy who opened the debate is no longer in his place, but the idea that being in the European Union has somehow stopped us trading with the rest of the world is nonsense. If that were the case, how is it that our largest single trading partner in the world is a country with which we do not have a trade agreement—the United States? If that is the case, why is it that our trade with China has increased by 64% since 2010 and China is now our fifth largest trading partner?
Having said all that, there are areas in which the European Union needs to show greater flexibility in the negotiations. It has done particular, different or special  deals with its external partners—Canada, Norway, Ukraine, Switzerland and Turkey. Let us take the example of our continued participation in EU agencies, which are very important to business and therefore to trade. When the Prime Minister mentioned the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the European Chemicals Agency, the European Union’s response—basically, “No. You can’t take part. They’re the rules. Forget it!”—was spectacularly ill-judged.
We should say to all those we speak to in Europe, “Now, come on. You could have said, ‘Let’s sit down and talk about how we can do this, but you’ll have to pay, you’ll have to abide by the rules and you’ll have to accept judgments of the European Court of Justice’.” Such an approach should not be a problem for the Government because, in the Prime Minister’s speech on security in Munich, she said that to maintain co-operation on security, we would accept the remit of the ECJ. That is another example of reality beginning to dawn on the red lines of the Government’s policy.

Caroline Lucas: On the gulf between what was promised and what is now being delivered, both economically and on the issue of Northern Ireland, would the right hon. Gentleman at least be willing to keep an open mind on the merits and wisdom of the people having a say on the Brexit deal?

Hilary Benn: Although I am tempted by the hon. Lady’s intervention to get into my views, which I think are well known, about a second referendum, I hope she will forgive me if I do not do so, in view of the pressure of time.
The other issue I want to mention is timing. Although we are two thirds of the way through the withdrawal process, we have not even started negotiating our future relationship with a deal that is meant to stand us in good stead for decades to come and it is not something that can be done in a hurry. I therefore make a plea for flexibility both during the remainder of the article 50 period and during the transition period, when the bulk of the negotiations will be done.
Since this is a debate about European affairs, I want to talk about some of the broader challenges we face in Europe, and about Britain’s contribution to addressing them at a time when so much of our effort, energy and time is being spent dealing with the consequences of Brexit. Let us take the nerve agent attack in Salisbury. This is exactly the circumstance in which we need a multilateral response—the Prime Minister spoke about that today—and, in the case of Europe, we need the closest possible co-operation. Yet this is also the moment when we are undermining such co-operation through Brexit, and pulling apart that relationship in the hope, which I accept is what the Prime Minister has said she wants, of then rebuilding it. In truth, the use of that nerve agent is exactly the reason we need to conclude swiftly an agreement for co-operation with the other 27 members on defence, security, foreign policy and the fight against terrorism.
There are so many other things to which we should be turning our attention. How are we going to sustain strong economies in Europe? How are we going to respond to what is a wave of nostalgia for an age gone by—people are trying to come to terms with change—that   informs much of the support for some political parties and movements right across Europe? When we look at the Mediterranean, we can see the extent of youth unemployment in north African countries and the challenges they face in meeting the needs of their populations. When we look at climate change, we should think of the people who will flee if droughts or downpours force them to do so, never mind the fact that people will in the end kill each other not because of their different political views, but because they are fighting over natural resources, including water. We should also think about threats to peace and security, and about the onward march of technology, with the challenges and the fantastic opportunities that it will create.
While we wrestle with the desire for greater self-determination and control, we must not lose faith in the multilateral institutions—the European Union, the UN and others—that we created to give ourselves a better chance of dealing with those challenges. If we have learned one thing from the past 100 years, never mind the past 1,000 years, it is that, to be able to look after ourselves, we must look after others, and to do that successfully we have to learn to work together.

Antoinette Sandbach: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who, as ever, was very eloquent. I heartily endorse his point about using multilateral institutions, but I fear that the failure of Europe to act in an appropriately tough way after the murder of Litvinenko may well have led the Russian state to think that it could have another go here. I would have argued for sanctions to be applied, particularly against Russia’s gas exports, as I think that that would have had a big impact. I support the right hon. Gentleman’s calls and the solidarity shown by Europe, but I ask it to go further and to consider strict measures against the Russian state.
I want to address the importance of not so much our trade in goods, but our trade in services, which has been under-represented in many of our debates on Europe. I do so particularly in the light of the rather aggressive statements by President Trump in the past few days. Services are vital for our prosperity. They constitute almost 80% of UK GDP and 80% of UK jobs, as well as 45% of our exports. A large proportion of our service exports go to Europe. In fact, this trade is worth £90 billion annually, which is more than the Government spend on transport, housing, the environment, industry, employment and agriculture combined. When we see it in those terms, we understand the importance of a deal for the service sector. That is not just about financial services, because it also includes sectors such as insurance, legal, cultural and digital services.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to an ambitious and comprehensive deal, which will be essential, as it will have to cover a range of sectors, including the service sectors, with their various requirements and needs. I therefore encourage Ministers to be bold. The exit analysis produced by a number of Government Departments, using the most up-to-date economic model, shows that the real threat to UK plc comes from non-tariff barriers. We can have a debate about the customs union, but I argue that it is non-tariff barriers that create the biggest threat to the UK economy.

Mark Garnier: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of non-tariff barriers. The World Trade Organisation itself identified that there were 300 non-tariff barriers in 2010, and the figure rose to 1,200 by 2015. Does she agree that Great Britain can be a strong advocate of free trade in the WTO and can try to drive a reduction in not only tariffs, but non-tariff barriers?

Antoinette Sandbach: Of course there is nothing to prevent us from doing that at the moment. In fact, the number of non-tariff barriers has increased during our membership of the WTO, even though we are also a member of the EU. That is a real and significant danger to the UK economy.
I hope that we will look in detail at sectors such as the three that I want to address: digital, insurance and legal. The digital sector covers a huge range of industries. They are not just new tech businesses; they cover a wide range of services for many companies. They are exposed to the same risks as many other service industries, but they also have to contend with data protection rules that will impact on data flows after Brexit.
TechUK says that digital makes up 16% of UK output and 10% of UK employment. It is a significant export sector, and about 96% of output and 81% of exports are in services. That is key. It is vital that we look at an agreement that deals with cross-border data flows with not only Europe, although 75% of our data flows are with Europe. We are one of the most advanced countries for trading online. Our consumers are extremely educated in and knowledgeable about buying goods and services online. It is important that we look at how we address these issues in a future deal.
Even if we maintain identical regulation with the EU, there are questions regarding the legal basis on which companies can transfer data between the UK and the EU27. It would be for the European Commission to assess whether we had achieved adequacy. Failure to achieve adequacy could force localisation or the redirection of an EU citizen’s data. That fragmentation could create significant costs for UK businesses, which would have to implement alternative legal structures. According to one study, cross-EU data localisation could cost between 0.4% and 1.1% of GDP, and lead to significant drops in private investment and a drop in service exports. The uncertainty over whether a deal will be struck could see companies restrict the amount of data they store and process in the UK in the short term. Clearly, we welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that we will seek more than just an adequacy arrangement, and that we want an appropriate ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office, but it is vital that we actually deliver on that and do so quickly.
The second area I want to address is UK legal services. The UK legal services industry has made it absolutely clear that the CETA model does not provide a comprehensive framework for professional services. I would argue that the Government need to be looking at Norway-minus, not Canada-plus-plus-plus. It is clear that the impact of no deal on services in the legal industry would be more dramatic than it would be on the insurance industry. That is because a widely established series of EU directives has created a really well functioning market in legal services in the EU. The sector is worth £26 billion to the UK, which is the equivalent of 1.5% of GDP, and employs more than 3,800 people, often in  highly paid and high-skilled jobs. In 2016, there was a net export of £4 billion from the legal services sector into Europe.
It is vital that, when we look at the customs union, the EEA should be the plan B. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said. We absolutely support the Prime Minister in going out and getting that deep and special partnership and deal, but if for any reason we cannot achieve that deal, the plan B should be an EEA/EFTA-style deal. That should be the fall-back, not WTO arrangements. If any of my constituents wonder how I have reached that conclusion, they should look online—it is on the parliamentary website—at the analysis that has been produced from across Government Departments indicating that an EEA-style departure or agreement would be the least damaging option for the UK economy. That would still allow us to go out and strike trade deals—there are trade deals with 57 other countries—and to go into a potential market of 900 million people. We could still do fantastic trade with the Chinese, because when the Prime Minister returned from her recent China visit, she had signed £9 billion worth of trade deals. I would argue that that option needs to be very seriously considered by the Government as a plan B.

Mark Hendrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), whose thinking in some respects is very similar to mine.
Unfortunately, we are in a situation in which a Conservative Government find themselves in the unenviable position of not having a majority in Parliament while there are big divisions among their Back Benchers. They have an arrogant disregard for the practical realities they face, particularly with regard to their negotiation stance with the EU27 on Brexit. From “Brexit means Brexit” to “deep and special relationship”, and now “managed divergence”, it is clear that the Prime Minister is trying to find forms of words that will hold her party together, rather than producing a firm negotiating stance that is clearly understood by the EU and has a reasonable chance of success.
The marriage of convenience between the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party can be sustained only by the additional payment of £1 billion to Northern Ireland and an agreement over not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This marriage is predicated, obviously, not only on a payment from the Exchequer to Belfast, but on the understanding that the free movement of goods, services and people across the border between the north and south of Ireland can be negotiated successfully with the EU27 without the UK having access to the single market or being in the customs union. Currently, that seems highly unlikely at best, and impossible at worst.
Without an agreement on access to the single market, as well as some agreement on a customs union, it is difficult to see how the Democratic Unionists can avoid a hard border. Current indications from Brussels give the impression that the EU27 will not be willing to agree on an open border unless there is some agreement in those two areas. All in all, the Government have a huge mountain to climb, are badly equipped to do so,  and seem to think that the solution is to placate their own Back Benchers, rather than carrying out serious negotiations with our European neighbours.
It is now 21 months since the referendum and there is still little agreement between the EU and the UK on many key issues. The leave campaign promised that an extra £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS if we left the European Union. We now find a Government with a Foreign Secretary who was one of the leaders of the leave campaign, and who said that the EU could “go whistle” when it became clear that the UK had to pay to leave the European Union in order to meet obligations that had already been agreed with the EU. On the contrary, the Government have now agreed to pay £40 billion to £50 billion to exit the EU. That is in sharp contrast to the £350 million a week that was going to come back into the NHS.
The so-called “sufficient progress” that was claimed to have been made in the first phase of Brexit still overlooks the details of what would be required to deal with a hard border with Ireland and to guarantee citizens’ rights in a manner acceptable to the UK and the EU. Within the phase 2 negotiations that should focus on the framework of a future relationship, we find that the EU is focusing on a “framework” while the UK talks about a “future relationship”. Little seems to be agreed about whether the transitional deal can be extended beyond two years, and a date of October this year to formalise talks on a transition is far too late to give businesses throughout the UK any sort of certainty about how they can continue to conduct business with companies in the EU27 states.
My view is similar to that of the hon. Member for Eddisbury: the UK should have adopted a negotiating stance of realising an outcome similar to the position of Norway, which has access to the single market despite the fact that it is not a member of the EU. On top of that, I would have liked to have seen a discussion about a customs union that would be far better than Turkey’s, which we could have negotiated with the EU27 in good faith. However, we have a Prime Minister who says that we do not want to be in the single market or the customs union. She wants a bespoke trade deal just for the UK, but she seems oblivious to the fact that such a proposal would seriously undermine the European single market and is therefore totally unacceptable to the EU.
The introduction of the concept of “managed divergence” seems to be more about managing the diverse range of views among Conservative Back Benchers than managing emerging differences between EU and UK regulations. The Chequers Brexit awayday, which was held to achieve a truce between the warring factions of the Conservative party, resulted in a negotiating stance of “ambitious managed divergence”. That form of words satisfied both the Brexiteers and the remainers, but it will find no support in the EU27 when these hard-headed negotiations finally get going.
The EU wants the Prime Minister to come forward with her vision of a future relationship between the EU and the UK. The managed divergence she talks about is known as the “three basket” approach, because it has three tiers: a core tier, where the UK would agree to align fully with EU regulations and adopt new rules   automatically; a middle tier, where there would be a form of managed mutual recognition of rules, such as for environmental protection; and an outer tier, where the UK would be free to diverge from EU rules with no consequences for market access, whether or not those areas are in the single market’s acquis. The notion that the EU will be willing to accept three baskets of regulations in its trading arrangements with the UK is delusional and makes the British Government themselves look like a basket case.
This whole Brexit catastrophe is like watching a car crash in slow motion, except that the driver, the Prime Minister, is holding her hands over her eyes and trying to convince the passengers—her own party and the public—that everything will turn out fine. It can only result in humiliation for the Prime Minister when it is made clear that managed divergence is not acceptable and that this inflexible attitude towards the single market, the customs union and, for that matter, the European Court of Justice cannot continue. One can envisage the outcome being a hard Brexit. That hard Brexit is the favoured option of some of the Brexiteers in her party, but it could destroy any hope of a soft border between the north and the south of Ireland.
The Prime Minster should stiffen her resolve and tell her recalcitrant Back Benchers that our trading relationship with the EU is still important, even though we are leaving the EU. She should get down to serious negotiations that will preserve jobs and businesses up and down this country, instead of leading us off a cliff edge that will result in a WTO-style agreement.

John Lamont: I would like to focus on the ongoing negotiations between Scotland’s two Governments on the powers set to be transferred from Brussels to the Scottish Parliament, which will have an impact on Scotland’s ability to do business and trade, especially if we get it wrong.
While those negotiations are ongoing, and in the light of the fact that the UK Government have now published their amendment to clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill, the SNP Scottish Government are rushing another Brexit Bill through the Scottish Parliament. The EU withdrawal Bill may have its faults, but it is at least legal; the same cannot be said of the SNP Government’s so-called continuity Bill, which is currently being considered by Holyrood. It has been ruled unlawful by the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer and strongly criticised as inconsistent by a range of experts, and yet it is still being rushed through in a few days with minimal scrutiny by MSPs.

Stewart Hosie: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very clear in his words. The continuity Bill has not been declared illegal by anyone. The Presiding Officer has raised a question over its competency, but as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Lord Advocate has said that it has been carefully drafted so that it is not incompatible with EU law and does nothing to alter EU law until after Brexit, and he made the rather serious point that it is simply preparing for Brexit in exactly the same way as the UK’s withdrawal Bill. I hope, therefore, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, that the “illegal” word will be withdrawn.

John Lamont: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point, although I suggest he read very carefully what the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has said, and I remind him that the Lord Advocate is a Scottish Government Minister and so of course supports the Scottish Government’s proposal. The Presiding Officer is the ultimate determiner of which Bills are competent to come through the Scottish Government.

Paul Masterton: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the narrative appears to be being perpetuated that the Presiding Officer sat in his office one evening, read the draft Bill and to the conclusion on competency on his own, as opposed to having received a range of extensive and incredibly high quality legal advice from a range of Scotland’s leading law firms?

John Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Presiding Officer has done this not in a vacuum but with the advice of the Scottish Parliament’s lawyers and others, and it is misjudged by the Scottish Government to think they can push ahead regardless of his view.
Just 11 MSPs are currently considering and voting on more than 230 amendments to the Bill in what was originally planned to be a single sitting that started at a quarter to six last night. Late nights may not be unusual here, but it is unprecedented in the Scottish Parliament for so many amendments to be given so little time to be considered. I remind Members that the Chamber of the Scottish Parliament is given only one opportunity to consider a Bill in detail, and that it has no revising Chamber to make improvements at a later stage. To force through so many amendments in so little time is not the way to legislate. The fact that Opposition MSPs were able to identify hundreds of problems with the Bill with only a handful of days in which to consider it should be a wake-up call for the Scottish Government.

Anna McMorrin: The hon. Gentleman referred to the lawfulness of the continuity Bill. Does he agree that in Wales the Presiding Officer has deemed it lawful?

John Lamont: The legislation that created the Scottish Parliament is very different from that which created the Welsh Assembly. I do not know whether the powers are similar, but, having served in the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, I do know that it is for the Presiding Officer to determine whether Bills are competent to be considered by the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer was very clear about the fact that this Bill was not competent.
If passed, the Bill would give Scottish Ministers a raft of powers, including the power to decide which bits of EU law they wanted to adopt in domestic law. Those decisions should rest with the Scottish Parliament, and that, I suggest, is the real power grab. It will do nothing to help Scotland to trade, or to protect businesses in Scotland that trade with the rest of the EU or, indeed, with countries around the world. The fact that the SNP Government are pushing the Bill through Holyrood, ignoring the views of the Presiding Officer and avoiding any meaningful scrutiny by MSPs, shows what the SNP really thinks of the Scottish Parliament and democratic accountability.

David Linden: I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will put on the record that the only party in the Scottish Parliament that opposes the Bill is the Conservative party. Otherwise, on a cross-party basis, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament supports it. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Committee system, he is a former Member of that Parliament, and he knows fine well that the legislation is scrutinised in Committee.

John Lamont: I also understand the huge inadequacies of the Committee system in the Scottish Parliament. The other place here is not perfect, but at least it has the ability to amend and genuinely scrutinise. Yesterday there were more than four and a half hours of debate on the continuity Bill. How many hours, how many minutes, did Back-Bench SNP MSPs contribute to that? Just over two minutes. That shows the level of accountability to which SNP MSPs subject their Government in the Scottish Parliament.
Ever since the introduction of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—in fact, ever since the result of EU referendum was known—the SNP has been desperately trying to make Brexit into an excuse to have another go at independence, but I am pleased to say that Scots are not buying it. As Professor Curtice has just pointed out,
“rather than creating a bandwagon in favour of independence, Brexit served to expose a fissure in the nationalist movement that Nicola Sturgeon has struggled to straddle.”
The introduction of the SNP’s continuity Bill is just the latest attempt at that. The Bill is damaging because it makes a deal on these powers—a deal that the SNP claims it wants to make—less rather than more likely. It is also damaging because it adds yet more constitutional uncertainty at an already difficult time, and will do nothing to increase Scotland’s ability to trade with the rest of the EU and, just as important, with other countries.
Moreover, the Bill is unnecessary, because we now have an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill which essentially flips clause 11 around, and which is accompanied by a list from the UK Government of the areas where a UK common framework is necessary. No such list, I note, has been produced by the Scottish Government. Those frameworks are critical to our ability to trade throughout the United Kingdom and in those other countries.
But let us take a step back from the rhetoric and grandstanding of the nationalists on the Benches opposite and, indeed, in the Scottish Government. If we take that step back, we see that this is really a minor disagreement. The list of powers that the SNP claims are being taken away from the Scottish Parliament relate to, for instance, late payment of commercial debts and the labelling of honey. These might well be important powers, but is aviation noise management really being discussed around the dinner tables of Scotland, or is the talk of the pub really who is going to control good laboratory practice? I think not. More importantly, despite the rhetoric of a power grab the reality is that not a single one of these powers is being taken away from the Scottish Parliament, for the simple fact is that the Scottish Parliament does not control these powers currently; Brussels does. And the majority of these powers are going to be coming to the Scottish Parliament; the so-called power-grabbers in Westminster are going  to be sending new powers Holyrood’s way, and that is after passing a Scotland Act in 2016 which has already made Holyrood one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.
Despite talk of a crisis, the UK and Scottish Governments agreed on the way forward; the vast majority of these powers which have been built up in Brussels will be coming back to the Scottish Parliament. Some will, however require UK-wide frameworks and both the UK and Scottish Governments agree on this approach.

Pete Wishart: If we were playing a little game here that for every time the hon. Gentleman mentioned the SNP we would have a drink, we would be drunk by now. I remember the days not so long ago when he believed that the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be required before these frameworks were agreed and put forward. What has happened?

John Lamont: We accept that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is required, but the hon. Gentleman’s party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, in Holyrood is deliberately creating the politics of grievance. She is creating division and deliberately not reaching that agreement, to stoke up what the Scottish nationalists think is going to get them to their ultimate goal: a second referendum on independence. We are having none of it; we are having absolutely none of it.
It makes sense to ensure that businesses do not face the risk of new barriers to trade with other parts of the UK. The Scottish Government accept that, for example, different labelling requirements or different regulations on pesticides across the UK would stifle trade and are not in the interests of Scottish businesses. So the only disagreement is over how this approach is implemented, which is hardly the making of a constitutional crisis and is hardly an excuse to push through unlawful and rushed legislation, as the SNP is currently doing in the Scottish Parliament.

Karin Smyth: It is always fascinating for the rest of us to listen to the debate going on among Scottish colleagues on this issue, but, talking about the Union, is the hon. Gentleman not remotely concerned that his Government are being propped up by the 10 votes of the Democratic Unionist party in this Chamber? Does he not think that perhaps the demands that austerity and Brexit are forcing on our constituencies are having a greater effect of undermining the Union than what he is currently talking about?

John Lamont: I totally reject that suggestion. The Prime Minister has been clear that her objective through Brexit is to achieve the best deal for all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is up.

Chuka Umunna: I welcome this debate, but I do not welcome the fact that the Government continually duck having votes in this House on these matters, or that they continue to do everything they can to withhold appropriate information so that we can come to an informed view on behalf of our constituents.  My view is that when we are asked to vote on the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister is supposed to return to this House with in the autumn, we should be granted a free vote given the magnitude of the agreement and what we are dealing with and its importance for future generations in this country.
As we can see every single day, it is clear that the Brexit process has been a total and utter mess. Article 50 should never have been invoked at the time that it was invoked; we should have had the debate we are having now before it was invoked. It is extraordinary that we have only been given serious detail by the Prime Minister this month, more than a year and a half after she took office and when we are halfway through these Brexit negotiations. Only now do we seem to have more clarity from the Government as to the direction in which they wish to take this country in these Brexit negotiations.
I give the Prime Minister this: her speech was significant because for the first time it officially acknowledged what we know to be true, which is that the Government are voluntarily choosing to pursue a policy that they have admitted is going to make this country poorer. She made it clear in her speech that we were going to get less access and that we would not have a frictionless border. She talked about achieving as frictionless a border as possible—[Interruption.] It is no use Ministers shaking their heads. We know from the impact assessments that they commissioned from their own civil servants that the options they are choosing to pursue will make this country poorer. Let us be clear about this. We hear all this talk about our EU friends seeking to bully our country and to punish us, but they are not doing that. At the outset, they put a range of options on the table, including remaining a member of the single market and the customs union, and it was this Prime Minister who took those options off the table.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is right. Our European partners have said clearly that the red lines that this Government have set themselves mean that the goals they wish to achieve are impossible. We cannot blame our EU partners for that, because they are the Government’s own red lines.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the Prime Minister who is dictating the kind of agreement that we will reach with the European Union.
Let us be clear about what has happened since 2016. In March 2016, the Office for Budget Responsibility was forecasting that our economy would grow by 2.1% this year, next year and the year after. However, because of the judgments and decisions that this Government have made, the OBR is now forecasting that our economy will grow by a paltry 1.5% this year, 1.3% next year and 1.3% the year after. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) is chuntering in his place, but I say to him that I cannot remember a time since the war when a GDP forecast was coming in at under 2% for every year. This forecast is a result of the policy decisions that he is making.

Jim Cunningham: The Government’s strategy on  these negotiations is a shambles, as my hon. Friend has indicated. More importantly, however, they are banking on the Trump Administration bailing them out. They think they are going to get great deals from the Trump  Administration, but if we look at agriculture, for example, we can see that they are not going to get any great deals at all.

Chuka Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will say more about that shortly.
One of the most extraordinary things about the Prime Minister’s speech was that she did not explain how the future relationship that she set out was going to help the NHS, particularly given that so many of her Cabinet Ministers went around telling us that voting to leave the European Union would lead to a bounty for the NHS. The number of EU nurse applications is down 96%, and we lost 10,000 health workers from our NHS in the year after the referendum vote. We now have 100,000 vacancies in the NHS that need to be filled. There was no mention at all of this in her speech. I think it was the director of the Vote Leave campaign, Dominic Cummings, who said that if people such as the Foreign Secretary, the Environment Secretary and the Trade Secretary had not gone round saying what they said about the NHS, we would not be in this situation today.
Let me return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has just made about new trade deals. I agree with the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) that there is not an either/or choice about whether we pursue trade with the EU or with the rest of the world, even though that argument is often made from the Government Dispatch Box. Let us get real about this. This is not a question about whether this country is going to be able to do trade deals after we have left the European Union. We will be able to do trade deals after we have left the EU—if we leave the EU—but the question is: on what terms? When we negotiate with China with its 1.2 billion people, we are not going to get the same terms we now enjoy as we negotiate alongside 500 million people on our side of the table. We, a country of 65 million people, are not going to get the same terms, because we are a much smaller economy relative to the big economies that we want to trade with. That is the reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South is absolutely right to refer to President Trump. He is not going to ride to our rescue. We need only look at what he is doing to our steel industry with his 25% tariffs.
My final observation about the Prime Minister’s speech is that I have not spoken to any diplomat, EU ambassador or EU Foreign Minister who thinks that this Government’s technological solution to the hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland will resolve the issue. Nobody I have spoken to believes that that will happen.
What does that lead me to conclude? The form of Brexit that was sold to the British people is simply not deliverable. I will give this to the Government: it is not necessarily simply a matter of competence; it is the reality that so many of the promises that were made to people, whether they voted leave or remain, simply cannot be delivered. That is one reason why I think that—the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made this point—if we are to leave the European Union, we should at the very least seek to keep this country’s full participation in the customs union and, to my mind, in the single market. As far as I am concerned, if someone wants to end austerity and to promote social justice, they have to  support that position. Being part of the framework of the single market and the customs union would be no impediment to the implementation of the Labour manifesto, to our pursuing the nationalisations that we want or to other matters.
One of the things that I am most struck by as I go around my constituency at the moment is that many members of the public are just fed up with the Brexit process. They just want it to be gone. They want us to get on with it. But there is a recognition that the process is far more complex than anybody had thought and that it is throwing up all kinds of issues that nobody thought would be connected to Brexit. Who on earth would have thought that Brexit would be connected to the transport of isotopes used for medical research and cancer treatment?
However, the group of people in my constituency who have the most visceral and strong views about what is going on are the young people. They believe that what is going on is robbing them of the opportunities that older generations have taken for granted. They cannot understand why we would want to be doing this to them. That is why I think this House should have a free vote on the matter. The issue transcends party politics and politics more broadly. It is an issue of national interest, and I do not believe that the younger generation will ever forgive us, the generation of politicians sitting in this House of Commons, if we do not do the right thing by them and secure their futures, ensuring that they have the same opportunities that all of us enjoy now in the European Union.

Ross Thomson: As someone who actually represents, I hope, the young people of the next generation, I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna), because the great Brexit prize will be regaining our ability to strike new free trade deals across the world. Not only will Britain rejoin the rest of the world, but we will have the opportunity to lead the rest of the world as a global free-trading nation, championing trade liberalisation and taking on the voices of protectionism. Let me be clear that we are not leaving Europe or turning our backs on our European neighbours and partners. Rather, the Prime Minister has been explicit that the Government are seeking a deep and comprehensive trade deal with the EU that covers goods and services.
By leaving the customs union, the UK will regain its ability to set its own independent trade policy. Our trade with the EU is in deficit and declining. As the Minister stated in his opening remarks, it was 56% in 2006 and is now down to 43%. However, our trade with the rest of the world is in surplus and rising. We should not play down the importance of Europe as a trading market and partner, but we must orient ourselves towards the thriving economies in the rest of the world, such as in south and east Asia, and their growing demand for goods and services. Fifty-seven per cent. of Britain’s exports are now to outside the EU compared with only 46% in 2006. Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund estimates that 90% of global economic growth in the next 10 to 15 years will originate from outside the EU.
International demands for British goods is growing, and Aberdeen, which I represent, is well placed to take advantage of that as 90% of the city’s manufacturing,  which is mainly in oil and gas and environmental engineering, gets exported. The oil and gas industry is truly global, and anchored right here in the UK. Current industry exports accounted for 43% of the UK supply chain turnover in 2017, up from 41% in 2016. Oil & Gas UK’s “Vision 2035” has the ambitious aim of doubling the supply chain share of the global market from 3.7% to 7.4% in 2035.
The Balmoral Group, based in my constituency, provides an example. It was established back in 1980 and specialises in sub-sea buoyancy, renewable energy and engineering solutions. It employs about 500 people in Aberdeen. It is highly dependent on the export market: it is currently focusing on west Africa, South America and the gulf of Mexico. Its representatives have been clear with me that their only opportunity for growth is in the export market. They have already been working closely with the Department for International Trade on trying to exploit those opportunities.
Thanks to the investment from the UK Government, the Oil & Gas Technology Centre in my constituency was set up. It is working with the oil industry in developing solutions, new technology and innovation to maximise the full potential of the UK North sea—from asset integrity to maximising recovery from small pools, from drilling to decommissioning. The technology, developed in my constituency, is exportable and the opportunities are massive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) highlighted, the north-east is home to a thriving food and drink industry. It is also known for its whisky exports. The story of whisky is well known; perhaps a less told story is that about our other domestic exports. Here are just a few examples. In fishing, there are companies such as Macduff Shellfish, Denholm Seafoods and Lunar Freezing, which export to countries such as Nigeria, China, Vietnam, Uruguay and Ukraine.

Drew Hendry: During the EU referendum campaign, the hon. Gentleman was pictured outside the Scottish Parliament with a placard saying, “Vote leave to bring control of our fishing back to the democratically elected Scottish Parliament”. Will he be recirculating that image?

Ross Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. As is so clear, we are leaving the European Union and taking back control of the more than 200 nautical miles of our waters, giving us the opportunity to rejuvenate our coastal communities. We are supporting Scottish fishermen. The party that wants to sell them down the river back to Brussels, handing all the powers right back and keeping people trapped within the confines of the common fisheries policy, is every single Member from the SNP. I will take no lectures from those on the SNP Benches about the benefits of Brexit for fishermen.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Ross Thomson: I would like to make some progress, given that I have only three minutes left.
Companies in Aberdeen such as Saltire Seed and Alan Twatt are exporting seed potatoes to Thailand, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Those are just some examples of what is happening in my region.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the economy. Does he believe the figures that the UK Government have produced about the hit to GDP from leaving the EU?

Ross Thomson: No. The figures that have been produced are not based on what the Prime Minister has said herself she wants to achieve: a deep and special relationship with Europe. None of the figures is based on that assumption.
There are huge opportunities for Aberdeen and the wider north-east to use our competitive advantage to seize the benefits of Brexit. We must set our sights on the future—a new global future. It would not be in our or the EU’s interests for there to be any unnecessary restrictions on trade. I am confident that the Prime Minister will deliver a new, bespoke partnership that will support our mutual interests. The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy, the fifth largest exporter and the second greatest soft power. Our worldwide presence is reinforced by our global brands, our creative industries and the reputation of our universities. Britain is truly global and we must be ambitious in order to maximise the golden Brexit trade opportunities that lie ahead  of us.

Anna McMorrin: I want to start by talking about the approaching constitutional crisis that this Government are threatening to bring about. This Tory Government continue to put the established constitutional order and devolution settlements at risk with their blatant grab of devolved powers. After months of debating and meetings, they are still struggling to grasp the concept of the consent of our devolved Administrations. We must not see powers that are devolved under the current devolution settlement going from Brussels to Westminster without consent from Cardiff and Edinburgh. During the last meeting of the JMC, the Welsh Government were told that the UK Government would not be pressing amendments on this to a vote before further discussions, and today it is down to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of both Wales and Scotland to try to end this stalemate. However, I do not see any new offer coming forward and time is running out. It is very troubling that, even though the Welsh Government compromised by accepting that several rules and regulations currently decided in Brussels will need to be operated on a UK-wide basis, this UK Government cannot bring themselves to reassure the devolved Administrations that their consent and agreement will be sought. This is just not good enough.
In Wales, we are being expected to accept that decisions on up to 24 policy areas, including agriculture, pesticides, animal welfare, organic farming and the environment, are to be taken in Westminster, without any consultation and without consent from Cardiff.

Paul Masterton: Will the hon. Lady tell us how much influence the Welsh Government currently have in the setting of those frameworks within the EU and whether the EU obtains the consent of the Welsh Government when setting them?

Anna McMorrin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he is completely missing the point. We are looking at those powers coming back to Westminster,  and they should be going back to Cardiff and Edinburgh where those powers are devolved. Both Cardiff and Edinburgh—Wales and Scotland—play a part in those discussions at EU level all the time.

David Linden: I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that the devolution settlement is clear that, if something is not reserved when it returns to us, it is then devolved. That is why this is a power grab in respect of the devolved settlement.

Anna McMorrin: I agree that this constitutes an absolute power grab by this UK Government. Until we see substantive changes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, there is the need for the continuity Bill. It would be preferable to continue to protect devolution via the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—that is what I want to see—but should agreement not be reached, the continuity Bill becomes one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be scrutinised by the Welsh Assembly.
May I pay tribute to my colleague Mark Drakeford, a Cabinet Secretary in Wales, and the Welsh Government for pursuing that important piece of legislation, in the absence of an agreement being forthcoming from this Tory UK Government? The Bill is complex, but very clear in its aims. It is intended to deal with the inevitable consequences in domestic law of withdrawal from the EU by preserving EU law covering subjects already devolved to Wales; and it will enable Welsh Ministers to make necessary changes to ensure that legislation works at the point of withdrawal. That is what we need to see.
The Tory Government have questions to answer,  not just for Cardiff and Edinburgh but for people everywhere—people in my constituency of Cardiff North, in Wales, in the UK, and our friends and allies throughout Europe. After months of the Government’s trying to cover up the Brexit impact assessments, MPs were finally allowed to see them, as I did. I made the appointment, handed over my phone, which was locked up in a cupboard, and was allowed the hour given to look at them. A week later, they were distributed everywhere. I was concerned to read that the Government’s own assessment is that this country’s economic growth will suffer under any of the existing models for a future relationship with the EU. Under the worst-case scenario, a WTO-type agreement, which has often been hailed by Conservative Members as a perfectly acceptable option, GDP could decline by up to 7.7% cumulatively over  15 years. There was certainly no good news anywhere in those impact analyses.
In the past couple of months I have had my own meetings with representatives from UK and EU businesses, including Airbus, L’Oréal and companies from the pharmaceutical industry. The concerns are always the same: we need more clarity and a solid plan. If we are leaving the single market and the customs union, how will the Government ensure that the “Mad Max” dystopia that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union himself described will not become a reality? If  it is not “Mad Max”, why is it that any time that representatives from British industry—such as the Confederation of British Industry—or politics interact with our European counterparts in Germany, France and elsewhere, we are treated as if we live in la-la land?
When will the Government face the challenges of the unrealistic standards of their own internal party politics, which they have set to serve their own infatuation with an isolated Britain that has long gone? When will the Government tell us the truth about the effects of leaving the customs union and single market and offer a plan that, at the very least, does not feel like a suicide mission? When will they offer a plan that safeguards the future of our businesses and protects environmental and workers’ rights, our services, our people and our communities?

Vicky Ford: This is an extremely important debate. The 27 other countries in the EU make up our largest trading partner, which accounts for almost half our trade. Many thousands of jobs on both sides of the channel rely on that trade. This is a sensitive time for the most complex negotiations for a generation. Businesses need clarity, especially about what will happen at our borders. They need to know what our long-term trade will look like, especially in key 21st-century sectors such as pharmaceuticals, advanced manufacturing and the service sector. They also need clarity on what transition or implementation will look like.
Honesty and transparency are needed, but let us look at the Opposition’s offer. They say that they want to negotiate a customs union with the EU, but the Leader of the Opposition stood up in Coventry and said that he wanted to negotiate exemptions in relation to privatisation, competition and state aid rules. The week after that, I was in Brussels. Not a single country that has a customs union with the EU has an exemption for state aid rules. Even Turkey has to comply with all state aid and competition rules, in accordance with the EU treaties and/or EU laws. When I was in Brussels, time and again I asked politicians from other EU countries whether they would give the UK preferred access to the single market and a customs union with the EU but also allow us an exemption from state aid rules. Time and again, those politicians looked at me and rolled their eyes. The Opposition’s position is not honest or achievable, and I believe it is deeply misleading.
In trade negotiations, the devil is in the detail. The Prime Minister’s speech was very welcome. It moved us on with a huge amount of detail, and I especially welcomed the detail about the aviation sector, the tech sector, the science and innovation pact—boy, do we need to continue co-operation on science and innovation—and security.
I want to focus on three areas. On services, UK sales to the EU in services are 40% of our trade. The sector has grown as a percentage of our trade in nearly every year. In today’s modern economy, we cannot separate goods and services. My mobile phone, for example, feels like a good, but its contents are all services. If a cancer scanner is sold in Europe, it is sold with a maintenance contract—a service. I am about to buy a new car, and it will come with a financial lease arrangement—a financial service. Walking away with no deal on services is not a good deal. It is especially not good for financial services. Some 2,000 people in my constituency work in insurance, but many hundreds of thousands of German savers have bought life insurance products from British companies. Both sides need a deal that covers services.
On borders and the customs union, while we need an agreement about what happens at our borders, there is much more to the customs union and negotiations than  just tariffs. In particular, we need to resolve the country of origin rules for complex manufactured products. The British car sector employs about 169,000 people directly and nearly 1 million indirectly. Many of the cars it produces contain components from all over the EU. Under WTO rules, those cars are not European enough to be European cars or British enough to be British cars. They would become orphan cars, if I may put it like that, and not eligible under any of our trade agreements with the EU or elsewhere. That is why it is particularly helpful that the Prime Minister has left open the negotiations on not just a customs agreement, but a customs partnership, which is an offer for us to mirror EU customs codes at our borders.
My third point, which is really important, is about transition. The transition period needs to be agreed now, because otherwise real issues will arise for people who work in the City and with goods. On the back of my mobile phone is a CE mark. Every product put on the market in Europe has one, and anything that is imported to the UK needs a CE mark. The mark is offered with a 12-month certificate. If a mobile phone  is imported into the UK from elsewhere in the world, it will need a certificate that is valid past not just the end of this March, but the end of next March. Unless we resolve transition this month, what happens to CE marks on goods placed on the market here and elsewhere in Europe will not be resolved. There are not enough notified bodies elsewhere in Europe to take the place of the British notified bodies today.
I am grateful to the Government for getting us to the negotiating point to date, for achieving the deal in December, and for the great moves forward and detail in the Prime Minister’s speech a couple of weeks ago. Let us resolve the transition period by the end of the month—that is crucial—and let us not lose sight of the devil in the detail of the negotiations ahead. The Leader of the Opposition’s position is not achievable, and we need to focus on finding deals that are.

Chris Matheson: Nothing I have seen since the referendum has convinced me that the plan for the UK to leave to EU is anything short of an act of national lunacy. The chaos that we are seeing now—whether over the intractable problems with the Irish border, or over the Government’s unwillingness to put anything on trade and customs issues to a vote in the House—just adds further to that impression.
Part of the problem is the Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to her Brexit extremists. Their letter demanding a hard Brexit had the added effect of reminding her that they have enough names to force a Tory leadership election. For me, that is what this business has been all about right from the start. David Cameron agreed to a referendum because he had failed to stand up to UKIP, so he dumped the Tory party’s Euro-divisions on the rest of the country. Then, as now, it was party before country. But I do not include all Conservative Members in that assessment, as I know that many share my concerns about the crazy rush to a hard Brexit because they know the catastrophic financial and economic effects that it would bring. They must make a stand and not allow their side of the House to be dominated by  the minority of European Research Group fanatics who currently make all the running, and I pay tribute to those who have had the courage to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) floated the interesting suggestion that there should be a free vote on the final deal—that is quite an intriguing proposition.
Just as I do not believe that there is a majority in the House for a hard Brexit—a nasty Brexit—nor do I believe that such a majority exists in the country. We know that 48.5% of those who voted did not want any Brexit, and I cannot believe that every one of the 51.5% who voted leave did so to make the country worse off as a result of a harsh and nasty Brexit—and make us worse off it will, as every single one of the Government’s own sectoral and regional analyses demonstrates. The very least we must be aiming for is a customs union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who has led the debate for the Opposition with methodical thoughtfulness and a case based on evidence, has long argued.
On the other side we have no evidence, only vague promises that everything will be just fine post Brexit and that we will simply be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. It is like promising a five-year-old rainbows and unicorns. In his speech just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for International Trade talked vaguely about exploiting “opportunities of the future”, without really laying out what that meant. At the same time, the Government pin all their hopes on a free trade deal with Trump’s America—the same regime that has sought trade conflict with us in the automotive and aerospace sectors, and now in the steel sector.
There is abundant evidence from industry to contradict the Government’s position. We heard from Ralf Speth of Jaguar Land Rover, who said that without a customs union, JLR would be hit with additional annual costs of £1.1 billion from profits of £1.4 billion. We see PSA raising the spectre of doubt about the future of the Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port, which is next door to my constituency. Although I welcome the new investment by Toyota, including in the Deeside engine plant that is also next door to my constituency, the basic fact is that such investment decisions are made two to three years in advance. That decision was already made before the Brexit negotiations. I am more concerned about the words of warning from the Japanese ambassador, after his meeting with the Prime Minister, about Japanese companies having to reassess their investment in a UK without easy access to Europe.
Similarly in aerospace, Airbus needs certainty over a customs union. Flights come in and out of Chester airport several times a day, carrying parts to and from Hamburg and Toulouse. Without sensible customs arrangements, the company’s brilliant, efficient, multinational manufacturing process would be impossible. Aerospace and aviation companies also need regulatory certainty—and quickly. Again, we are already approaching the cliff edge because of long lead times. I have heard Conservative Members making the absurd suggestion that we should simply align ourselves for regulatory purposes with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, which demonstrates that, for those hard-line Brexiteers, this is all about ideology and lining up with a right-wing, Trumpist America, rather than doing what is right and best for British industry, jobs and skills.
I finish with a point that was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) regarding our relations with Russia. I am clear that I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong words today on Russia. We must be tough in standing up to Putin’s bullying, but we have to ask why Putin is attacking the UK at this time. There might be some domestic reasons, but he does seem focused on the situation here. He has already meddled in the EU referendum, and I expect more details of that to emerge in the coming months, but he knows that by isolating ourselves from the EU—from our allies who share our values and oppose his—we are weaker than we were.
I strongly support NATO and Britain’s active membership of that great alliance, but the EU is also an alliance of security. When it comes to economic as opposed to—God forbid—military conflict against an aggressor, we should be seeking the support of our allies in the EU. Now is not the time to be walking away and going it alone when we are faced with Russia’s threats. I hope that hon. Members might, in quieter moments, take the time to consider whether, in the light of Putin’s latest aggression and his meddling in our democracy, we need to reassess this whole Brexit mess as something that is not currently in the UK’s national interests. Putin’s tactics are to sow chaos through doubt, discord, confusion and disharmony. Surely even from the point of view of Brexit extremists, all of a sudden there is a greater threat to the UK and the west than the European Union—I hope that they wake up to it.

Stewart Hosie: My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) made a very considered speech in which he laid out in some detail the damage that Brexit will do. I do not intend to go over that ground. Rather, I want to talk specifically about the Scottish Government’s continuity Bill. It is important that the House understands precisely what the Scottish Government are doing in relation to Brexit and why they are doing it.
Before I do so, I want to comment on two things that were said earlier. First, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is no longer in his place, spoke about the continuity Bill in Scotland being subject to many amendments. Indeed it is—147 or so wrecking amendments from the Tories. I simply say gently to the Tories from Scotland that it would have been better if they had signed up to amendments to the UK’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill as a bloc rather than tabling all those wrecking amendments to the Scottish legislation.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) spoke about trade liberalisation—and I agree with him. At the moment, however, an American company, the Harley-Davidson motorcycle company, is telling us that Donald Trump’s tariff regime will add $30 million to its cost base. If his Administration are prepared to damage all-American businesses, it is naive in the extreme to assume that some kind of good deal will be cut for the UK.

Ross Thomson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees about trade liberalisation. Does he not agree, therefore, that as the EU is the most protectionist organisation there is, with high tariffs on imports coming into it, we will be better off out of it so that we can help lead the world in liberalising trade?

Stewart Hosie: I know the Scottish branch of the Tory party does not like expert opinion, but the pre-Brexit Treasury leak estimates a loss of up to 10% of GDP, the post-Brexit analysis estimates an almost similar amount, and the Scottish assessment estimates a comparable amount. We are faced with a catastrophe in every circumstance, not only if we go to WTO rules. Better, I think, to fix the problem, to maximise trade, to try to stay within the customs union, and to accept the free movement of people, than to talk about unicorns and rainbows—the Brexiteers favourite slogan.
The Scottish Government’s continuity Bill prepares Scottish devolved laws for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It means that the EU laws currently in force will be retained after withdrawal and that the Scottish Government will be given the tools needed to make sure that our laws keep working after withdrawal. It is a devolved version of the UK Government’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I want the House to understand that the Scottish Government have not rejected out of hand the UK Government’s proposals. Their preference is to rely on the UK’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill. But the Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to seek an agreement with the UK that would allow the necessary consent to be given. In this scenario, the Scottish Government would seek to withdraw the continuity Bill. However, the continuity Bill has to be introduced now, and it is going through the Scottish Parliament now, so that if legislative consent is not given, Scotland’s laws will still continue to work properly. That explanation is rather different from the uber-Unionist “wrecking” version that we heard from the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
This is important because under the UK Government’s proposed way of preparing for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, they acknowledge that it requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to become law. Right now, though, neither the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, nor, on a unanimous cross-party basis, the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee agree that consent should be given. That is extremely important because, as they say, the Bill allows the UK Government to take control of devolved powers without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. That is why both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have called it a power grab. The all-party Finance and Constitution Committee has said that it is “incompatible” with the devolution settlement in Scotland. The UK Government’s proposed changes to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill do not yet address that. They would retain the UK Government’s ability to change the limits of devolution without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. That is important.
In that way, the Scottish Government’s measures differ greatly from the UK Government Bill. The main difference is that the Scottish continuity Bill gives the Scottish Parliament its full role in the preparation of Scotland’s devolved laws for EU withdrawal. It gives the Scottish Parliament an enhanced role in scrutinising proposals for changes to laws as a result of withdrawal and makes some different policy choices, including retaining in law the EU charter of fundamental rights. It also contains a power to keep pace with EU law, for good reason, where appropriate, after the UK chooses to leave the EU.

Paul Masterton: The Opposition amendments to the Scottish Government’s Bill significantly water down the massive power grab attempt by Scottish Ministers in relation to continuing alignment with the EU, which I think the Scottish Government want for five years, then five years, then five years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those amendments to the Bill are a welcome defeat of the Scottish Government?

Stewart Hosie: When Conservatives talk about a power grab in Holyrood, it is code for defending all powers coming to London. I suspect that lots of Tories would settle for direct rule of Scotland and the abolition or dismantling of devolution completely. I am not going to fall into the trap of the hon. Gentleman’s trick question.
The question is: why are the Scottish Government introducing this legislation now? The truth is that Scotland’s laws must simply be prepared for the day the UK leaves the EU. If we did nothing, laws about matters such as agricultural support or food standards may fall away entirely. Many others would stop working in the way they were intended. That is important.

Bill Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Hosie: No, I have given way twice, and there are no extra minutes left.
As my hon. Friends said earlier, we accept in principle that there may be a need for UK-wide frameworks on some matters. It is true that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have been working with the UK to investigate those issues and explore how those frameworks would work. However, it is vital to recognise and respect the way that devolution works. If it is not reserved, it is devolved. If it would normally fall under the remit of the Scottish Parliament and is currently in Europe, it must be put into the devolved institutions now. Should a UK-wide framework and joint working be required, let the UK, the Scottish, the Welsh and indeed the Northern Ireland Governments negotiate that framework.
What we simply cannot have is a power grab where the powers that the UK Government are not certain about are taken back to London, and they then decide in a very patronising way what, if anything, might be devolved in the future. It is completely unacceptable for the UK Government to rip up the devolved settlement. That, in a sense, is the consequence of the power grab.
On Thursday 8 March, the UK Government said that they had drawn up a new list of powers, including ones they say are reserved, that had not previously been shared or discussed with the Scottish or Welsh Governments. A year down the line of these negotiations, a new list is drawn up. We have agreed that the list should be published for the sake of transparency, but we certainly do not agree to the list.

John Lamont: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Hosie: No, I am not going to give way again.
The Scottish Government are being asked to sign away the Scottish Parliament’s powers with no idea how UK-wide frameworks will work, how they will be governed and how we will go from them being temporary restrictions the UK Government want to agreeing longer-term solutions.
Despite the UK Government’s promise, they failed to bring forward an amendment in the House of Commons to the flawed clause 11 of the withdrawal Bill. Those measures are going through the Lords, but of course, that does not allow proper debate in this place. However, a new amendment—the one that has been proposed—would still allow the UK Government to restrict the Scottish Parliament’s powers unilaterally through an order made in this place, and it could be done without requiring the consent of either the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government.
If Brexit is itself, as I believe, an unmitigated disaster, its implementation—because it has not been thought through, and there is no plan—is threatening devolution entirely. There is a lack of understanding and respect for the idea that if a power is not reserved, it is devolved. I therefore ask the Minister to return to the respect agenda: if a power is not reserved, devolve it now. The Government should stop the power grab and get on with negotiating properly with the devolved Administrations so that the UK withdrawal Bill can actually work without threatening the powers of the other nations within the UK.

Stephen Kinnock: On 23 June 2016, the people of this country voted to leave, as did a majority of my constituents. The result was won on  a narrow margin, but the result was clear, which is why I voted to trigger article 50. However, when we triggered article 50, I argued that we needed a Brexit deal that reflected the narrow margin and would bring leave and remain voters together. That is why I argued then, as  I am arguing now, for an EEA-based Brexit. I will say a little more about that later.
Barely a year after that referendum, the Prime Minister called an election in which she hoped to secure a mandate for a hard Brexit, but the British people said no, so the Prime Minister saw her majority disappear. Any sensible Government would at that point have accepted and committed themselves to a sensible Brexit—one that could bridge the divide—recognising that compromises must be made if we are to secure a mutually beneficial deal from this process.
As Michel Barnier’s famous escalator slide makes clear, the Prime Minister’s red lines leave us with little choice but a Canada-based free trade arrangement. However, a Canada-based deal is about as much use as a chocolate teapot: it fails to cover services, which account for 80% of the British economy; it does nothing to resolve the issues regarding our relationship with EU agencies, just under half of which have no provision whatsoever for third-party country participation; and it leads inexorably to a hard border in Ireland.
I am sure that the Government toadies and Brextremists on the Back Benches are going to repeat ad nauseam the Prime Minister’s line about a bespoke deal, saying that all deals involve cherry-picking and so on. To do so, fundamentally misunderstands not only this process, but that of all trade negotiations, because the fact is that all trade deals are a blend of off-the-shelf and bespoke elements. The Brexit negotiations are, first, about deciding on the foundations, and the foundations have to be based on a basic template, whether an EEA, FTA or association model. Once we have agreement on the foundations, we can then move on to an argument about the doors, windows and roof of the house.
It is clear that the fundamental problem with the Government’s approach to these negotiations has been an inability to accept that we must agree such a foundational model or template as the basis for the negotiations. It is absolutely unforgivable that, just over a week from the EU agreeing the guidelines for the future relationship phase of our negotiations, the Government are still talking about all of the things that they might do—rather blue sky, vague and sufficiently inoffensive things so  as not to alienate any wing of the Conservative party. That is a profound abdication of duty and responsibility on the part of the Government, because it has left  a vacuum and allowed the EU to define our destiny  for us.
Ever since the referendum, we have been on the back foot because the Government have utterly failed to define the terms of the debate. That leads us, inexorably and ultimately—I hope—towards the conclusion that we need an exit on the basis of an EEA-EFTA deal. A Brexit on an EEA-EFTA basis—with a customs union provision building on the protocol 10 precedent, or seeking something deeper—could provide the overarching framework for a deal that is not only achievable, but desirable for both leave and remain voters.
Moreover, an EEA-based Brexit could navigate a path around the Government’s red lines, because the EEA is not the same as the single market and must not be conflated with it. The EEA is an internal market covering much, but not all, of the single market and three of the four EFTA states. The EEA excludes fisheries and agriculture, but the key point is that the EEA is predicated on a fundamentally different legal and political purpose to that of the single market. While the EU single market is predicated on the treaty of the European Union, with its aim of “ever closer union”, the EEA internal market is based on the EEA agreement, the purpose of which is
“to promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the contracting parties”.
The fact is that the EEA is, in essence, a reversion to the European Community, based on the terms of the Single European Act 1986.
Moreover, articles 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement allow for the reform of any of the four freedoms, including the free movement of people. That has, in fact, already been done: the protocol 15 precedent enshrines a quota-based system in Lichtenstein, and it would have been available to the Swiss had they voted to join the EEA back in 1992. It would, therefore, be a lever at our disposal should we wish to join the EEA.
The EEA meets another red line, namely that of ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The EEA is overseen by the EFTA arbitration court, which, with UK membership, would have a plurality of UK judges. The EFTA court regularly rules in a different manner from the ECJ and frequently sets precedents that are later followed by the ECJ.
In the EEA, this House would be wholly sovereign. We would see an end to direct effect, and through the right of reservation we would possess a veto on EEA rules. What is more, EEA members have considerable rule-shaping powers through the various committees of the EU, and retain an influence on the EU position  at the WTO, at which the UK possesses our own seat at the table.

Vicky Ford: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case about the EEA and EFTA, although it is unfortunate that he described the Canada deal as a chocolate teapot, because it did give free trade in chocolate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is meant to be a quick intervention—

Vicky Ford: Quickly—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There is no “quickly” about it, because you will need to explain to the Front Benchers when I cut their contributions down to eight minutes each. It is an intervention, not a speech. I call Stephen Kinnock.

Stephen Kinnock: In short, if we are looking for a common-sense Brexit that strikes a pragmatic balance between prosperity and sovereignty, the EEA is the only game in town. It will allow maximum access to the single market, with the ability to reform free movement, resolve the Northern Ireland issue, end the jurisdiction of the ECJ and, above all, reunite our deeply divided country.

Vicky Ford: The problem with the EEA is that we would have to cut and paste all EU rules, especially on key sectors such as financial services. Would it not be better to fight for a bespoke deal?

Stephen Kinnock: As I have said, it has to be a blend of a template and a bespoke deal. The Government have fundamentally failed to understand that, first of all, these negotiations must create common ground—a territory based on models and templates that are familiar to both sides at the negotiating table. Of course, things can then be tweaked and finessed, but the basic model of the EEA gives us the architecture and certainty for which the country is so desperately crying out. That approach would also have put the British Government on the front foot, rather than leaving a vacuum into which the EU has been obliged to step.
The referendum exposed many of the deep divisions that have existed in our country for many years—divisions between young and old, town and city, graduate and non-graduate. Those divisions came together as we coalesced behind “tribe remain” or “tribe leave”. We must not allow the tribalism of the referendum to define our destiny. We must come together. We must find a way to reunite this country, find compromise between remain and leave, and place that compromise at the heart of our negotiating strategy. In the EEA-EFTA model, we have the answer to protecting market access, jobs and opportunities; to a frictionless border in Northern Ireland; and to the call to take back control on immigration, in our courts and in this place. Let us come together, reunite Britain and build an EEA-based Brexit.

Phil Wilson: I want to raise two areas of European affairs this afternoon.
The first is the potential impact of Brexit on the north-east of England. Some 60% of north-east trade is with the EU and 50% of the cars manufactured in the north-east are exported to the EU. Nissan employs about 7,000 people and more than 30,000 jobs through the supply chain. I have never been one to say that, for example, after Brexit the Nissan plant will close, but I  am concerned about future investment in the plant. As the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said in its report on the impact of Brexit on the automotive sector:
“It is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK in a no deal or WTO tariff scenario. The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market will be inevitable.”
The cost to UK jobs could be in the hundreds of thousands and to inward investment in the hundreds  of millions of pounds. That is another example of why many of us on the Labour Benches call on the UK to remain a member of the single market and the customs union. The same report made it explicit that the UK cannot expect an expansion of trade overseas to outweigh the loss of trade to Europe arising from a hard Brexit. It seems senseless to me to walk away from one half of the north-east’s trade without a strategic means of replacing it other than through wishful thinking.
The impact assessments the Government tried to keep to themselves reveal the potential impact on the north-east. They identify that three of the major sectors to be hit by Brexit will be the automotive, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors—all major industries in the north-east of England. The impact assessments determine that of all the regions and nations of the UK, the north-east of England will be the worst hit. This is due to the region’s strong manufacturing and industrial base, which would be exposed most to the changes and trade barriers, and because we have the greatest dependence on exports as a proportion of the regional economy.
The impact assessments say that the north-east would see a decline in its GDP by as much as 16% over 15 years. We can talk about a new customs arrangement, frictionless borders and non-divergence as much as we like, but all we will end up doing is reinventing the wheel only to discover it will not be as round as the original. It is no surprise that the north-east of England chamber of commerce issued a statement following the spring statement. Ross Smith, director of policy for the chamber, said:
“the success or otherwise of negotiations and planning for Brexit could yet render these forecasts largely irrelevant and business still have little detail to base their planning on”.
The second issue, of great strategic importance not only to the UK but Europe, is our response to Russia’s flouting of basic international law and the international rules-based systems by which the community of nations should abide. I do not think we should doubt that Russia’s intent with the continent of Europe is to divide and rule. Putin wants a weak Europe. Brexit, I believe, plays straight into his hands. Russia wants to see Europe divided, introspective and prepared, ultimately, to play the international game by his and Russia’s rule.
Bully-boy tactics are always the result of the weak. The Russian state is weak, economically no larger than Italy. Its population is ageing. Its military strength may be perceived to be great, but it lacks depth.

Jenny Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend and colleague from the north-east for giving way. I just wanted to point out that, although the north-east voted substantially to leave, it shares his concerns about manufacturing, jobs and security.

Phil Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. She is right. I think there is a shift in opinion now—that Brexit could damage job prospects for tens of thousands of people in the north-east of England.
Putin does not want kinetic action with NATO, but he does want us weakened, distracted and inward looking. That is why the warfare that Russia wants to adopt is hybrid. It can be social, anti-democratic and economic warfare—trying, for example, to influence democratic elections. From funding populist movements, such as Marine Le Pen’s Front National, now called National Rally, is it any wonder Nigel Farage sees Putin as one of his favourite leaders? I endorse the Prime Minister’s actions today, but the Salisbury incident is about more than just spies.
The use of a chemical weapon on the streets of a city of the UK is also an attack on the principles by which we stand and they must be defended. Members of all parties in the House must declare on which side they stand. This is about defending our way of life, which is internationally protected by a rules-based order that we need to preserve and which Russia seeks to undermine—from its indiscriminate military action in Syria, to the Ukraine and Crimea, to the boosting of its enhanced nuclear capabilities, to a failing economy run by oligarchs who use London as their plaything, and to the troll farms of St Petersburg, which spread news of a dubious nature throughout Europe and the US. Russia is trying to shake our confidence in our way of life. Engage and beware, yes, but to give it the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. It is trying to undermine liberal democracy in the west—the special relationship with the US, NATO, the UN and, dare I say it, with the EU. Those bilateral or multilateral institutions have served us well for decades.
I say to the Minister that our leaving the EU helps Putin. Putin has always resented what he sees as the belittling of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He wants to return to a world where Russia helped to call the shots. It cannot do that now, so the next best thing is to weaken those who are sitting at the table. It interfered in the US election. It welcomes the Catalonian independence movement. It supports the Front National in France. It welcomes the extreme stance of Hungary’s Prime Minister and the AFD in Germany. Then, of course, there is Brexit.
Putin believes that the east has disintegrated since the Berlin wall came down. Now it is the turn of the west and he will play any game, hold any card and roll any dice to ensure that happens. Eventually, the UK, one of the most principled critics of Russia in Europe, will not have a seat at the table in the EU. That is good for Putin. Of course, we will continue to engage with the EU, but it is better to have a seat at the table than not.
Let us not forget that NATO is a military alliance, and the EU, not NATO, has the ability to impose sanctions against Russia. I agree with the findings of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s “Global Britain” report: the Prime Minister needs to come to the House to lay out what a “global Britain” actually means. Now is the time to defend ourselves as a country proportionately and offer a rallying cry for what we believe in as a country. We may have created difficulties for ourselves, but our stance today is the right one on Russia, because the whole argument comes down to values. I see myself as a real Labour man who, in the mould of Clem Attlee and Ernie Bevin, is prepared to make the difficult decisions. I think today is the time to make them.
I believe in Britain as a force for good in the world. We on both sides of the House need to stand up for the principles that underpin our way of life—democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These have been the foundations of the west for decades. We need now to stand against the forces, at home and abroad, that seek to undermine those principles.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) gave a compelling exposition of what we have and the benefits that we enjoy within the single market and the customs union, and what we stand to lose from being outside them. I again urge the UK Government to have genuine, not token, engagement with the devolved Administrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) pointed out why it is absolutely vital for the Scottish Parliament to bring through a continuity Bill to protect the laws of Scotland. He also highlighted the naivety over trade with the US—the hope, and the “rainbows and unicorns” that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) spoke about—and again urged the UK Government, as I will, to engage meaningfully with the devolved Administrations. It can still be done, even at this late date.
Everybody is getting a bit frustrated by the idea that a bespoke agreement is going to be magically produced here. There is a “hit it and hope” attitude from Government Front Benchers, completely ignoring the realities of the modern world. The UK Government tell us that all will be well, and we are supposed to take it on trust that that is the case, yet through this entire process to date, they have sought to exclude Parliament. They have had to be forced to share impact assessments. They have not listened to or respected the position of the devolved Governments. In this place, we still do not have answers even about the process, never mind what the impacts will be.
As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) mentioned, there will be a vote, but that vote in itself is a bit like Brexit: it is shrouded in confusion. How much time will there be between the publication of the final agreements and a vote in this place? Nobody knows. Will Committees be able to take evidence and publish reports on the final agreements? Nobody knows. How long will there be between the vote and exit day? Nobody knows. What additional documentation will the Government publish to accompany the agreement and declaration? Nobody knows. There are lines and lines and lines of things that to date nobody knows about this process. It is yet another Brexit boorach.
We do not have answers to these questions on the parliamentary process, never mind answers to the key questions being asked by business and constituents. That is why the Scottish Government have introduced the continuity Bill and why everyone in the Scottish Parliament, apart from the Tories, understands the need for it. It retains in domestic law the EU law currently operating in devolved areas. [Interruption.] Scottish Conservatives can chunter from their Benches, but it is clear that they are not standing up for Scotland. The Bill gives Scottish Ministers the powers needed to ensure that devolved law continues to operate effectively after  the UK withdrawal, and that is a very important point, given the range of powers that so far have not been agreed to be devolved directly. These powers should go straight back to the Scottish Parliament. Just today, an Ipsos MORI poll showed that the Scottish people are unconvinced by the UK Government’s position. One in eight people in Scotland think it will damage the economy. Only one in seven think there will be any benefit.
What do we know about the economy and trade? The analysis by the Financial Times that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife mentioned suggested that Brexit was already costing the economy £18 billion a year, or £350 million per week, as he pointed out. That is not money on the side of a bus; it is money thrown under a bus—lost to us completely. The London School of Economics estimates that Brexit has already cost the average household £404 a year as a result of the fall in sterling and the higher inflation since the vote. The UK Government’s own leaked impact assessment confirms that under all scenarios the UK will be worse off after leaving the EU and that the UK could be forced to borrow £120 billion more after Brexit between 2019 and 2033.
Leaving the EU customs union and single market would be disastrous for Scotland’s trading position. It will create barriers to trade, such as EU tariffs, customs checks, rules of origin and divergent regulatory regimes, and could impede Scottish trade with the rest of the world, as we stand to lose the benefit of 36 EU free trade agreements covering 53 markets. When the UK Government talk about trading with nations outside the EU, they should remember that those very agreements have been facilitated by our being in the EU. So there are many benefits to lose. For the food and drink sector in Scotland, we know that a hard Brexit risks access to Scotland’s biggest overseas regional food and drink export market; it risks Scottish competitiveness and increased costs for business; it risks the value and reputation of Scottish produce; and it substantially risks food production through the loss of our workforce.
We know that there is no trade without transport and that maintaining and improving physical access to European countries and allowing transport operators and service providers registered in the UK to operate across the EU, and vice versa, remains a vital component of trade. Minimising administrative arrangements for crossing borders for international freight and logistics is vital, as is access to labour. They are crucial for our transport network.
If I had more time, I would talk about what will happen to rural Scotland or the energy market if we do not get a meaningful deal, but I will finish by saying that so far we do not know what will happen about Parliament’s role. We know that the continuity Bill is a much-needed piece of legislation to protect the interests of the Scottish people and their devolution settlement. We know that the protections businesses seek and the questions they still have remain unanswered by the UK Government. We know the impacts and concerns for our economy and trade. Similarly, we know the impacts and concerns for the food and drink sector, health and social care, transport, rural Scotland and our energy market and tourism, among much more. We do not need more rhetoric from the Government about “scaremongering”. These are genuine, real concerns, and we need answers.
Will the Minister answer the questions about the parliamentary process, so that we can do our job of representing our constituents and ensure that there is a transparent and open process? Will he recognise that the Scottish Government are being asked to sign away the Scottish Parliament’s powers with no idea how UK-wide frameworks will work, how they will be governed, and how we will proceed from the temporary restrictions that the UK want to agreeing longer-term solutions? In doing so, will he accept that this is not a constructive way in which to engage with the devolved Governments?

Karin Smyth: Saturday is St Patrick’s day. Although we do not know where St Patrick was actually from, we know that he was not Irish. Captured as a slave by the pirates who roamed the Irish sea at the time, he was not entirely welcome when he returned as a free man, although he might find himself quite popular at Twickenham on Saturday.
The Bristol Post recently published an article about the Bristol merchants who, under Henry II, went to Dublin in 1171 to defend Dublin Castle against the insurgency in Ireland. As a reward from Henry, they were able to establish trading posts. There is still some debate about whether the merchants still have citizenship in Dublin, or whether the arrangement has been overridden by the 1937 Irish constitution. That is something that I still intend to discuss with the Irish Government.
Because time is short, I will skip through the centuries that lie between then and now, during which people have flowed across these islands, mostly in times of conflict and often in times of great poverty and desperation, looking for work and trying to settle in various areas. A hundred years ago, we were the same country. My grandparents were born under the auspices of this Parliament in Mayo and Cavan, joining John Redmond’s followers in the British Army during the first world war.
Upstairs in the House this week, there has been an exhibition of pictures by Bernard Canavan depicting the flow of migrant labour after the second world war. Last week, in one of the Committee Rooms, there was the most amazing discussion and presentation by the former Taoiseach John Bruton and the historian Dermot Meleady about John Redmond and the battles that were waged in the House. That was at the invitation of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and it was a truly magnificent evening.
This weekend London will have three days of celebration for St Patrick’s day, which is a far cry from my experience as a child growing up in London. We had very small parades which were hidden away on a Sunday morning, viewed with great suspicion, and heavily policed. There was no welcome parade on the streets of London. My first experience of crossing the Irish border was in 1985, when I was only 21. It was a shocking, horrendous experience, which I will not go into now, but over the intervening 30 years I have witnessed a phenomenal transformation of that experience.
I urge the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister to visit parts of the border now in order to understand exactly what is at  stake. The Good Friday Belfast agreement was not just about Northern Ireland, and it was not just about Ireland. It was not about a border. It is about the freedom of movement of people across these islands, and the deep roots that we have. It is also incredibly important to the Irish community who are settled  here, and have seen the experience of being Irish in  this country transformed over the last 30 years. The normalisation of relations was hard fought for, and we need to preserve it. For the first time, we have an international treaty between our countries based on mutual respect and shared interest after those centuries of conflict. It is an exemplar across the world.
The verdict of the House of Lords on the border was that there was
“a distinction between identifying solutions that are theoretically possible and applying them to a 300-mile border with hundreds of formal and informal crossings, and the existence of which is politically divisive. Any physical infrastructure at the border would be politically contentious and, in the view of the PSNI, a security risk.”
Paragraph 47 of the December agreement talked about a “mapping exercise”. I have asked before in this place and in writing to the Prime Minister for that mapping exercise to be published.
We need to end the façade that there can be any kind of different customs and alignment regimes across these islands, or any unilateral change to the current provisions. From St Patrick and the Bristol merchants’ wanderings to the billions of pounds traded and movements made across these islands now, the great people of these islands expect to be able to move and trade freely, and any dilution of that will not be acceptable to any of us.

Jenny Chapman: It is a pleasure to follow the outstanding and thought-provoking speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth); I am very glad that I was in the Chamber to hear it. At the start of my speech, may I send our best wishes to the Minister, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is about to embark upon the most challenging and rewarding experience of his life? It is not Brexit; he is due to have a baby—on Friday, I believe—and the thoughts of us all are with him.
This has been an interesting afternoon of speeches—not so much a debate as a collection of MPs’ thoughts on all matters Brexit-related. Excellent though the contributions have been, it seems to me that we have just taken part in what is known as displacement activity—the parliamentary equivalent of scratching one’s head when confused. Why is there no opportunity for the House to express its view in a vote? Because the Government are afraid of this Parliament and their own party.
I have now served in Parliament opposite three Governments. While none of them have been any good, obviously, none have lacked confidence like this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, the Tory party is utterly riven in government by the task that will define it. How we leave the European Union is the single most important question this generation of MPs is ever likely to face, yet the Government have to be forced to give us a meaningful vote on it.
There is one issue that exposes the miserable inadequacy of the Government’s leadership more than anything else: the Irish border. The Government have no clue  about how to ensure that we have a frictionless open border in Ireland, and it is an outrage that our Prime Minister says that she is looking at the example of the border between the United States and Canada. That is one of the worst examples I can think of, so will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has finished looking at that particular example and ruled it out? I do hope so.
When will the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union visit the Irish border? I understand he has never been, but that is unacceptable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, with her excellent knowledge of all things Irish, and I would be happy take him. The hard Brexiteers have no suggestions about how to resolve this issue; they only have red lines and outrage of epic proportions directed at anyone who dares to suggest a sensible way forward. Where is the Government’s legal text of the phase 1 agreement? The EU published its on 28 February; where is ours? The Labour party thinks we should remain in a customs union with the European Union, and there is wide support for that in industry, particularly among manufacturers. That would safeguard jobs, help to resolve the Irish border and give certainty, but the Government have rejected this option because they are buffeted by hot air from their own Back Benchers, not because they are putting the national interest first.
The Government should listen to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) when she talks of the importance of services and non-tariff barriers. They should listen, too, when the former top civil servant at the Department for International Trade says that we are rejecting a three-course meal for a packet of crisps. He has a point, but rather than engaging in debate, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) goes around telling him to try a couple of multipacks.
We are just over a year from exit and the Government have so little to say on important issues. Precisely which areas do the Government want to diverge on and deregulate? What do the Government’s intend that the transitional period will look like? Will the European Court of Justice have jurisdiction, and on what? How will the Government ensure that there is an open border in Ireland without a customs union? Where is the immigration Bill; why is it delayed? When will the trade and customs Bills return to the House? As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) said, the Government are afraid of the House because they know that there is a majority in it for a customs union.
Labour’s approach would be much clearer. We respect the referendum result and accept that Britain is leaving the European Union. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), voted to leave, but we understand that our constituents did note vote to be poorer or less safe. Remaining in a customs union makes people safe, and they know that we are putting their jobs first. They understand why the Labour party takes its position.
Unlike some others, we want a close relationship with the EU based on our values of internationalism, solidarity and equality, and on maintaining rights, standards and protections. We would seek a deal that gives full access to European markets and maintains the benefits of the single market and the customs union, holding the Government to what the Brexit Secretary promised in  the House of Commons, with no new impediments to trade. We would negotiate a new UK-EU customs union so that there would be no tariffs with Europe and no hard border in Northern Ireland. We would seek to negotiate having a say on the terms of any new EU trade deal.
Labour does not believe that deals with the USA or China, both of which have weaker standards and regulations, would compensate for a significant loss of trade with our trading neighbours in the EU. Nor do we believe that being part of a customs union with the EU would prevent us from trading extensively with non-EU countries. Germany’s largest trading partner is China. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, the idea that being in a customs union prevents us from trading globally is nonsense. We will never accept our NHS or any other public services being part of any trade deal with Trump’s America. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) said, just look at what he intends for our steel industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) said, Labour believes that powers over devolved policy areas currently exercised by the EU should go directly to the relevant devolved body unless the UK Government can make a compelling case for that power to be held at Westminster.
In all these areas, the Labour party has set out an approach to the negotiations that is pragmatic, that respects the referendum result and that puts the national interest first. How long will it be before the Government do the same? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, how long will it be until the Government start to work to reunite our country? How many days of general debate do they think we need before they dare to present Parliament with an actual decision? The Government have limped along for long enough, and it is time they stopped listening to noisy bluster and pulled themselves together to secure a good deal for Britain.

Robin Walker: I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her kind words at the start of her speech. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy said in his opening remarks, this is a timely debate. We are approaching a crucial moment, and we must negotiate our exit from the EU while building a new and lasting relationship with it. We are ambitious about what can be achieved, as the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, and the UK is seeking the broadest and deepest possible agreement. We are making real progress. At the end of last year, we agreed key elements of our withdrawal, and we are in the process of turning that agreement into a draft legal text. This work has gone well in recent weeks, and in many areas, such as the financial settlement and codifying the chapter of the joint report on citizens’ rights, negotiations are progressing positively.
On Northern Ireland, on which the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke so well, the UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to the Belfast agreement, to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and to avoiding any borders within our United Kingdom. We are working intensively to achieve our immediate goal of agreeing a  strictly time-limited implementation period by the March European Council. Both the UK and the EU have published texts on the approach to the implementation period in the withdrawal agreement, and there is significant common ground between the two sides. Some issues remain to be discussed further, however.
We have put forward practical solutions that will help to deliver a smooth exit and protect both UK and EU interests during the implementation period. An example would be the use of a joint committee to resolve any issues that arise during that period, including in relation to any new EU laws. We look forward to continuing discussions with the EU and remain confident that we will reach an agreement by the March European Council next week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) pointed out, that is absolutely vital. Over the coming weeks and months, the UK and the EU will continue to push ahead with negotiations in all areas, with the aim of reaching a complete withdrawal agreement in October.
The Prime Minister has set out an ambitious vision for the future economic partnership that the UK is seeking with the EU. We want the broadest and deepest agreement that covers more sectors and establishes greater co-operation than any pre-existing free trade agreement. I noted the comments of right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, that the EU has a long track record of such bespoke agreements with key partners. We have specific proposals across our economy, including in goods, services, agri-food and fisheries, and I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) that we will be leaving the common fisheries policy when we leave the EU.
Five foundations must underpin our future trading relationship: reciprocal commitments to ensure fair and open competition that is built on trust in one another’s institutions; an independent arbitration mechanism; an ongoing dialogue with the EU, especially between regulators; an arrangement for data protection that goes beyond an adequacy agreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) made that point well—and, finally and importantly, the maintenance of links between our people. A fundamental principle in our negotiating strategy for goods is that trade at the EU-UK border should be as frictionless as possible, so we are seeking a comprehensive system of mutual recognition to ensure that, as now, products need to undergo only one series of approvals in one country. That can be achieved via a commitment to ensure that the relevant UK regulatory standards remain as high as the EU’s, which will mean in practice that UK and EU standards remain substantially similar in future.
Our default position is that UK law may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes. In some cases, the Parliament of the day could choose to pass an identical law. It could also decide not to achieve the same outcomes as EU law, but it would do so knowing that there would be consequences for market access. As I set out at Which? today, at the launch of its consumer charter, the UK has always played a key role in setting high standards for consumer rights, and we will continue to do so as we leave the EU.
My hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Chelmsford made powerful cases about the importance of trade in services, and we want an agreement that is broader than any agreed before. We do not want to discriminate against EU service providers in the UK and would not want the EU to discriminate against  UK providers. That will mean, for example, limiting any new barriers to prevent firms from establishing and agreeing an appropriate labour mobility framework that enables firms and self-employed professionals to provide cross-border services, either face to face, on the phone or through the internet. We will of course also want to continue to recognise the qualifications of each other’s professionals. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) spoke so passionately about the importance of financial services to his constituency, I can assure him that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor spoke in their recent speeches of the importance of reaching an arrangement for that sector, and I fully agree.
After we have left the EU, the UK will push for the greater liberalisation of global services markets. Trade in services represents around 20% of the value of world trade, but it accounts for 45% of the value of UK exports in 2016. Services are an important and growing component of supply chains, and digital technology is continuing to make more services tradeable.
In the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) described as serious and detailed and the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee described as frank, she accepted that access to each other’s markets will in certain ways be less than it is now. We understand that we cannot have all the benefits of membership of the single market without all its obligations, but we seek a new balance between those benefits and obligations.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will be leaving the customs union. A customs union has a single external border that sets out identical tariffs for trade with the rest of the world. As international trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU, remaining in the customs union would restrict our ability to set our own independent trade policy, and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) described such a scenario as “deeply unattractive” and explained that a situation in which the EU could make us subject to third-country trade deals would be a disaster. By leaving the EU customs union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to set our own independent tariff arrangements and forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world.
On security, which the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee and many other Opposition Members raised, we seek a deep and comprehensive security partnership with the EU. Our commitment to Europe’s security should be absolutely non-negotiable. As the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech, the job now is to get on with delivering the best outcome for the UK’s exit from the European Union, and that is what we are determined to do.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Freer.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BANKING IN NORTH AYRSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

Patricia Gibson: I am delighted to have secured this debate on banking in North Ayrshire, although I really wish it was not necessary. I should apologise in advance for my croaky voice as I struggle through this speech. I have been trying to secure this debate since November, when the closures of RBS branches in Kilwinning, Kilbirnie and Saltcoats were first announced. I have the fortune, or misfortune, to have secured this debate on the very week when I have lost my voice—make of that what you will.
Since November, I have spoken in three debates on bank closures, written several letters to Ross McEwan, the chief executive of RBS, and raised this matter with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which has summoned the chief executive of RBS. I have also held street stalls with SNP local councillors, activists and volunteers on countless Saturdays in the affected towns since Christmas, collecting signatures for a parliamentary petition protesting against these closures, which I will be presenting in this place in the coming weeks.
The reason for all this activity is the real anger and betrayal felt by the people of Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie at the loss of these banks in their towns.RBS is a bank that they own via the Government—a bank bailed out from its own mistakes and mismanagenent by their taxes. Now this same bank is leaving these communities without a backward glance or any sense of social responsibility towards the very communities on whose taxes the bank’s very continued existence relied.
Although many communities in Scotland will be left without a bank following the latest announcement of closures, in my own constituency what has happened brings the total number of towns with no bank to a staggering six. The towns of Dalry, Stevenston, West Kilbride, Ardrossan and Beith no longer have a bank; should the latest round of closures go ahead, we can add Kilwinning to that list.Kilwinning will be a town of over 16,000 people with no banking facilities—it would be funny if it were not so appalling and ridiculous. I honestly do not think any other constituency in the UK has been so adversely, cruelly hit. Indeed, the banks  are stampeding out of Ayrshire at an alarming—a staggering—rate.

Stephen Gethins: I salute my hon. Friend’s courage in getting through the debate. Does she agree that rural areas are particularly badly hit by bank closures? I am thinking of those in North East Fife, where RBS closed all but one, leaving a huge commute for those who need banking services the most.

Patricia Gibson: I do. I will come later to the fact that no cognisance has been shown of the consequences for communities that the banks are supposed to serve.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her timely debate about the whole issue of banks, which affects not only Ayrshire but the whole country. There is a trend for banks to make closures, particularly in countryside areas. People are  left to their own devices, with no way of getting money, their giro cheques or other services. This is a national issue. This is the thank you that the public get for bailing the banks out in the first place.

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real source of the anger: people’s sense of abandonment and being left to their own devices with no other facilities on which to rely, despite the fact that the bank exists because the taxpayer made sure that it did.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and thank her for giving us a chance to participate in a small way. Given that banking is increasingly moving online, it is hard for urban and rural communities that are geographically isolated from physical banks if they are also limited by the provision of broadband services. Does the hon. Lady feel that that issue should be clearly considered before any proposed bank closures take place?

Patricia Gibson: Indeed. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which go to the heart of the issue of financial inclusion, social exclusion and digital exclusion. These things have to be worked out together in some kind of organised fashion.
At one point in its history, RBS championed vowing not to close the last bank in town, but now it is twisting itself into all sorts of shapes in order to dissociate itself from that promise. I suppose the PR men for RBS found the appeal of that vow attractive, but now it seems that RBS is embarrassed by it and is no longer holding to it. We have heard a little tonight about banking online. We hear about this a lot, and I accept, as we all do, that many people now choose to bank online. There is no dispute about that. If it suits the lifestyle and needs of those who choose to bank online, good luck to them, but many do not bank online, for a variety of reasons. As the hon. Gentleman said, many choose not to do so because they are digitally excluded; this is a choice that they are not able to make.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Lady raised a very interesting point, because there is an issue with broadband, particularly in the countryside. A lot of people have problems with BT and broadband, and that denies people the opportunity to go online, if they so wish.

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. The banks talk about online banking as though it is a choice, but for many people it is not a choice, as they are digitally excluded. Many people may not be digitally excluded but may simply decide that online banking is not for them, for whatever reason. For the record, I put myself in that category, as I choose not to bank online. The point is that it should be up to the customer to choose how and when they bank, and it is not up to the banks to make that decision for us. But what we have now is a situation where the banks have decided, most cynically, that those of us who have chosen not to bank online must be herded into that particular pen, despite our will.

Neil Gray: I congratulate and commend my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the way she is strongly presenting her argument.  Will she comment on the strength of feeling in North Ayrshire about the footfall figures that have been released—or have not been released—by RBS on the branches there? There is certainly a feeling in Airdrie, where RBS is trying to close one of my local branches, that it has not provided sufficient or accurate information on the justification for those closures, which is very concerning.

Patricia Gibson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that. We all know, as we have all seen in our own constituencies, the jiggery-pokery that has taken place in the presentation of these figures, which do not reveal—[Interruption.] I am hoping that this is the first time “jiggery-pokery” will appear in Hansard.

John Bercow: I have heard the term used previously by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

Patricia Gibson: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker. We do know that there has been jiggery-pokery and all sorts of nefarious goings on as to how these figures are presented. [Hon. Members: “Sleekit.”] My colleagues are shouting the word “sleekit” to me, which may well indeed cover the particular practice that is going on. The point is that it is not right for customers to be herded into the pen of online banking, a place where they have up to this point chosen not to go or have been unable to go. We are being forced down this road by banks as they shut up shop. If we insist that we do not want to bank online, the attitude we see from too many banks, including in conversations I have had with banking officials, who shall remain nameless, is that they collectively shrug their shoulders and more or less say, “Suit yourselves, but we are still shutting your bank.”

Bill Grant: I thank the hon. Lady on several counts. I thank her for securing the debate, for the good work that she and her fellow councillors have done in her constituency to hold RBS to account and for using the word “jookery-pawkrie “—the “jiggery-pokery” that I can understand.

Gavin Newlands: Has that been in Hansard? [Laughter.]

Bill Grant: I am left-handed and I am from a different party as well. Will the hon. Lady join me in expressing dismay that none of the 10 banks that was given that reprieve was from Ayrshire? Indeed, the 10-month reprieve is simply a stay of execution and it is derisory for the people of Scotland. RBS could do better for the people, who have been customers for generations. It was a world leader and it has let down the people who  made it.

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is right that giving 10 banks a reprieve is not enough, and I am of course disappointed that none of them is in Ayrshire. I wish the banks that have been reprieved well, but I wish that we could add to that list the other 52 in Scotland that are earmarked for closure. If we could give a reprieve to the banks in my constituency, I am sure that  we would make every effort thereafter to persuade RBS that the reprieve should be permanent. Obviously, the goal would be to save every bank, but I shall come back to that later because the Minister is looking at me with a bit of alarm.
I would throw one question out there in respect of digital exclusion. The banks are fond of telling us that we do not need to have branches and that we can bank online. I would particularly like to know what RBS’s advice would be to digitally excluded customers. Where do they go when the last RBS in their town closes? How do they access banking services?

Chris Law: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. RBS likes to talk about the mobile vans that are going around, one of which comes into the rural part of my constituency of Dundee West. They often stay for a very short period; they have steps to get in, so those who are infirm or disabled cannot get in; and when it is raining people often have to stand waiting for half an hour to get service, so get soaked to the skin. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who are digitally excluded are the very people who come for that essential service?

Patricia Gibson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. RBS has informed me that in my constituency, North Ayrshire and Arran, it will replace the branches in Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie with mobile banks. That is completely unsatisfactory. The mobile banks are delayed by the weather and by traffic and they are not disability compliant. Apparently, the advice is that if someone is disabled, immobile or has a mobility impairment and cannot access the mobile bank, the banking teller will come out and they can do their banking in the middle of the street. Well, that’s okay, then! It is absolutely shocking.

Lisa Cameron: My hon. Friend is making an extremely passionate speech. The all-party group on disability, which I chair, is going to launch an inquiry into community banking for people with disabilities and mobility problems. My constituents who have mobility problems and live in Strathaven and Lesmahagow, where RBS plans to close the banks, feel particularly let down. They feel that no appropriate services will be available.

Patricia Gibson: Indeed; I shall come in a little while to the importance of providing accessible and sustainable banking services in all our communities and for the needs of all our communities, including for those of us who cannot get to the next town because of lack of our own transport or of public transport, or because of other mobility issues.

Joanna Cherry: My hon. Friend has spoken about the impact of bank closures in rural areas, but does she agree that they also have a real impact on small businesses on the high street in outlying village areas of a cities, such as Juniper Green in my constituency, where the Royal Bank of Scotland shut its branch last year? If the auto-teller is taken away, people will drive to the supermarket to get their cash out and spend their money there, rather than in the many vibrant small businesses that exist in places such as Juniper Green in Edinburgh.

Patricia Gibson: My hon. and learned Friend leads me smoothly to my next point, although of course we are not just concerned about rural areas—Kilwinning could hardly be called a rural area, by any stretch of the imagination. Her point about the effect on small businesses is extremely important, because we all know that small businesses, which are the backbone of our communities—the lifeblood of our communities, keeping the heart of our high streets beating—work in an extremely challenging retail climate. If local businesses cannot bank their takings at the end of the business day, they incur additional insurance costs. They can either take their cash home with them at the end of the business day—because if the bank goes, there is no night safe—or they drive to the next town to bank their takings. Either way, their insurance costs go up. With businesses already struggling on the edge of survival, that could well be enough to tip several of them over the edge. For that reason, the support of banks in our towns often proves critical for small businesses. Let us not forget that, regardless of their political views, everyone in this Chamber understands the importance of small businesses to keeping our high streets alive.

Hugh Gaffney: I welcome this Adjournment debate because three banks are shutting down in my constituency in Chryston, Bellshill and Tannochside. Tannochside has one local bank, built by the community. When those banks opened, it was local workers who built them, and the hon. Lady is spot on about local businesses. The staff of small businesses usually have to take large sums of money, and if the alternative is to go to the post office, post offices are not equipped to take them. This is a very good subject for debate and I thank the hon. Lady for introducing it.

Patricia Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I now need to make some progress, because I know that the Minister is keen to respond.
As for those living in the towns affected by the closures, Kilbirnie customers have been advised that the nearest RBS following the closure of their branch is in Largs, a round trip of 18.8 miles; Saltcoats customers have been directed to Irvine, a round trip of 12.8 miles; and Kilwinning customers have also been directed to Irvine, a round trip of 6.8 miles. That is simply not good enough when one considers that many of those customers do not have access to private transport. They will be at the mercy of local public transport in all weathers. So the elderly and infirm will be left to fend for themselves as financial and social exclusion—that is what we are talking about—bites in their towns. The bank closures will mean that the affected communities no longer have access to day-to-day essential banking services. We have heard about the problems of mobile banks. They are not a solution to the problem of the closure of the last bank in town. They are a poor substitute and the people of Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie expect and deserve better.
Banks have shown, and are showing increasingly, that they have no sense of service to our communities. Tonight, I call on the Minister to establish and enforce a guaranteed minimum level of service provision for essential banking services, recognising the importance of continued access to banking for our communities. Surely, it is now  time, given that banks are riding roughshod over our communities with no sense of service or responsibility, for a guaranteed minimum level of service provision for essential banking services to be put in place.
I know that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that branch closures are operational matters for the banks, but that is not good enough. RBS is still almost 73% owned by the taxpayer, so this is a bitter pill to swallow. In addition, the UK Government retain all legislative and regulatory powers in respect of financial services, so the UK Government have the authority to call a halt to this devastating round of closures while banks, stakeholders and the UK and Scottish Governments consider how best to take account of the obligation to banking customers and our communities. Whatever  the banks may say, they have an obligation to our communities—a service obligation, a financial obligation and a moral obligation.
The UK Government argue that these are “operational decisions” for banks, but there is a precedent, as the Minister knows, and George Osborne, the former Chancellor, let the cat out of the bag. He confirmed that during his time as Chancellor his consent was sought by RBS about the departure of the former chief executive officer, Stephen Hester. That means that the UK Government could right now reject any RBS branch closures unless and until impact assessments have been carried out, and should require RBS to ensure that practical and sustainable alternative banking services are put in place before any closures are signed off.
It really is time to call on RBS management to reverse these planned closures. The Minister tonight has a responsibility to demonstrate that the UK Government are standing up for our communities on this most important issue. The SNP Westminster leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), has persuaded RBS to reprieve 10 branches across Scotland until impact assessments have been carried out. I wish those communities well, but it does nothing to soften the hammer blow for the towns in my constituency which face losing their banks, and for Kilwinning in particular which will lose its last bank branch. In the past, the Minister has suggested that customers who are not happy can move their accounts to another bank. What does he suggest that the people of Kilwinning do, when there is no bank for them to move to within a reasonable distance?
Of course customers are also advised to move their accounts to the post office. Well, 10 years ago I recall collecting petition signatures to save post offices in  my constituency when swathes of them were being closed down in my constituency under a previous Government.Post offices bolted on to the back of the local Spar simply do not provide the range of services or privacy that customers need and deserve.
I appeal in good faith to the Minister to ensure that these closures are halted—that RBS is ordered to halt these closures and carry out full impact assessments on the communities affected. All the communities affected want nothing less, and the people in the towns of Kilwinning, Kilbirnie and Saltcoats deserve nothing less. Is the Minister going to stand with RBS management, or is he going to stand with the communities affected and the communities of Kilwinning, Kilbirnie and Saltcoats in particular? I urge him to do the right thing and stand up for our communities.

John Glen: I sincerely commend the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this debate. She has once again spoken very powerfully on behalf of her constituents, and I know that she is passionate about this issue. The RBS executives will note that there are more than 20 Members of Parliament here and that a number have spoken. They will also want to reflect on the views that have been expressed.
Since becoming Economic Secretary on 9 January, I have had the privilege of responding to a number of debates on the closures of bank branches across the UK and in specific local areas. In each, I have heard important stories about what the local bank branch can mean to the community, as I have heard again this evening. It means a great deal in terms of practical access to services. I will return to that point in more detail. Banks can also be at the heart of how people feel about their local high street and the future of their community. Putting my Treasury responsibilities aside, I visited a bank in my constituency that is facing closure in exactly the same way that the hon. Lady set out. I had to sit down with the bank manager and go through the same sorts of arguments, but these are commercial decisions. I will say a little bit more about that.

Brendan O'Hara: Will the Minister give way?

Neil Gray: Will the Minister give way?

John Glen: No, I am not going to give way because I have only eight and a half minutes, and I want to do justice to all the points that have been raised.
This Government are very aware of the issues. I will talk about the challenges facing the banking sector and our communities. I think that the hon. Lady has said in a previous debate that she does not bank online, and that is her choice, but whatever our personal preferences, banking is going through a period of unprecedented technological change and consumer behaviour is changing significantly. Banks are having to adapt to those shifting patterns of behaviour. The decisions that they are making are sometimes not popular and I understand why, but the hon. Lady will be well aware that those decisions are not for the Government.
The hon. Lady made a point about the former Chancellor, the former Member for Tatton, signing off on the chief executive post. There is a big difference between signing off on strategic leadership and getting involved in day-to-day commercial decisions.

Brendan O'Hara: Will the Minister give way?

Neil Gray: Will the Minister give way?

John Glen: I am not going to give way; I am just going to continue.
Each bank’s branch strategy, including whether to open or close individual branches, is for the management of that bank to determine. I understand that that is frustrating. It is frustrating to all of us who face this issue. The Government rightly do not intervene in these commercial decisions, nor do the Government manage  the RBS Group. RBS is headed by its own board, which is responsible for strategic direction and management decisions. All businesses strive to deliver for their customers, but they also need to be able to plan for the future and to make changes where they are needed. These are complex commercial decisions. RBS has made its decisions in line with its commercial strategy.

Stephen Gethins: Will the Minister give way?

John Glen: No, I will not.
The hon. Lady and her colleagues are entitled to ask questions, as they have done very effectively this evening, and to press RBS on its rationale. Although I do not agree that the Government should or could cancel RBS’s decisions, I am certain that the hon. Lady’s views, expressed here again this evening on behalf of her constituents, will have been heard by RBS.
I turn to the Government’s role with respect to the Post Office. The hon. Lady has previously said that the Government have “not lifted a finger” to help. I beg to differ. The Government are taking action, and I welcome the opportunity to reiterate that. For those who still need or want to bank in person, we have helped to expand and improve face-to-face banking services at the Post Office. There are 11,600 post office branches in the UK, 24 of them in the hon. Lady’s constituency. There is a post office in each of the three towns that she mentioned—Kilwinning, Kilbirnie, and Saltcoats. Indeed, across the UK 99% of personal customers and 95% of business customers can do their day-to-day banking at the post office.
In response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who was concerned about—

Drew Hendry: rose—

John Glen: I am going to response to the points raised. I have five minutes.
On the concern about small businesses and cash lodgements, RBS offers cash courier services, while the post office can accept up to £2,000 without prior notice, and further arrangements can be made on a case-by-case basis. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has mentioned previously, this might not be a service that people are yet fully familiar with, but I believe that it offers a valuable alternative, and that people are adjusting to the reality of what can be obtained from a post office. It is important that the people who can benefit from these services know about them, so I will keep pushing the banks and the Post Office to do more to raise awareness of the expanded services that they jointly offer. It is important that they make this case proactively and publicly. We should spread the message far and wide. We can all do our day-to-day banking at the post office. We in this House can help to reassure people who may be worried about this issue.
On the oversight of banks, where they do decide to close branches, the Government’s ongoing support for the industry’s access to banking standard is making a real difference. All the major high street banks have signed up to the standard, which commits banks to a number of outcomes when a branch closes: first, that  they will give at least three months’ notice—I think that RBS, certainly in some cases, has given six months’ notice—secondly, that they will consider what services can still be provided locally and communicate clearly with customers about alternative ways to bank; and thirdly, that they will ensure that there is support available for customers who need extra help to bank online or to access services at the local post office.
The standard is not just a list of outcomes—it has teeth, because the Lending Standards Board monitors and enforces it. It is actively monitoring how RBS Group and other banks fulfil their obligations to their customers when branches close. It has a range of tools and sanctions at its disposal should a bank fall short. I know that it is very open to talking to Members on behalf of their communities, and I encourage the hon. Lady—

David Linden: Will the Minister give way?

John Glen: No.
I encourage the hon. Lady—and her colleagues—to talk to the board if she has concerns about the steps that RBS is taking, or not taking, in her constituency. The access to banking standard is the practical way to shape a bank’s approach to local areas. I encourage all Members in all parts of the House to ensure that their community is aware and able to engage with the bank directly.
Several Members have mentioned access to cash. The Government continue to work with industry to ensure the provision of widespread free access to cash. In  December, LINK, the organisation that runs the ATM network in the UK, committed to protecting all free-to-use ATMs that are 1 km or more away from the next or nearest free-to-use ATM. This is a welcome strengthening of its financial inclusion programme, and one that I hope will reassure members across the House.
The hon. Lady fights hard for her constituents in North Ayrshire, as do a number of other Members who have spoken, and I am sure that their concerns have been heard. We all understand the frustration and disappointment caused by bank closures, but these are not Government decisions. The Government’s policy remains clear: RBS is responsible for these decisions, and RBS must defend them.

Neil Gray: Will the Minister give way on that point?

John Glen: No.
Banking is changing rapidly—we cannot deny that reality—but the Government believe that banks must support communities across the UK when their local branches close. That is a dialogue that we are all deeply engaged with in trying to find the best solution for communities. In this place, we can help to draw attention to these issues and work constructively to help our constituents to access the services they need. For my part, I will keep pushing for everyone to be able to access the banking services they need, wherever they live.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.